From: Florian J. <flo...@we...> - 2012-06-13 20:39:17
|
Am 13.06.2012 20:26, schrieb Dennis Schulmeister: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:53:49 -0400 > "Tim E. Real" <ter...@ro...> wrote: > >> On June 8, 2012 10:15:32 AM Geoff Beasley wrote: >>> OK, It's important that we change this. I vote for Tracks and Objects; A >>> Track is a slot on the timeline ; an Object is simply any data block of >>> any kind recorded,imported or pasted into a track. >>> > ... >> OK essentially you are correct. >> >> The goal in my mind when describing bits and pieces of MusE is, >> like any modern large software, describe them in terms of 'objects' >> which is the lowest common denominator since there may be many >> things BASED upon those objects (we call it object inheritance). >> This is, after all, object oriented software, or at least should strive to be. > > Aw, please don't do it. Because that's how we developers tend to think > but it's exactly how users don't think. For us it always appears to be > the right thing to reduce things to the lowest common denominator > because it fits just fine to anything. So reducing all musical > elements to mere "objects" upon which "operations" can be performed > seems logical. Mostly because we're used to that kind of abstract > thinking. > > But in my experience non-expert users don't think like this at all. > Usually they get lost very quickly by such abstractions. Instead we need > to distinguish between the developer point-of-view and the user > point-of-view. For us tracks, parts and notes might be objects with a > common base-class and therefor similar attributes and methods. However > when talking to the user we need to choose different wording and > metaphors out of the user's domain. Therefor concrete terms like "audio > track", "midi track", "audio clip", "instrument", "note" or "region" > should be preferred over abstract terms like "object", "attribute", > "operation" or "event" because in that regard "object" is just a better > word for "that thing which we found no better name for". but i do think we should have (obvious!) generalisations. like "track" means "any of audio, wave, midi, drum, whatever track" and stuff. but true, no non-obvious things like "Objects". i once tried to explain a c++ beginner how an object can both be a "Blah" and a "BaseClass" _at the same time_... horrible. > > More concrete wording also helps the user to distinguish. From a user's > point-of-view an audio clip will never be the same as a midi clip or a > list of automation events even though they are all placed on the > timeline. well, sort of. when i wasn't a programmer (a loooong time ago ;) ), i still thought of such things as somehow-similar. lots of the operations i could do with midi parts were also applyable to wave parts, through the same menus (just with some differing entries). > Because if they were the same thing they would look the same they do, almost ;) > and wouldn't behave differently. they don't, partially ;) > At least you can't edit an audio clip > on the piano-roll and you don't need a midi synthesizer for it to > produce any sound. true. but i think the abstraction "a part can be moved, cloned, deleted. there are wave and midi parts, which have additional different properties..." is valid for users. > On the other hand what can be expected from an > object? What can it do and what does it require? In order to answer > that you need to know what kind of an object it is. And that's the > whole point: If things need to be distinguished give them different > names which are easy to understand and easy to remember. well, but if things share a common denominator in the user's world, then their name should also share one. part -> audio, midi part is perfectly fine object -> audio, midi part not (not obvious enough) track -> synthesizer, wave track, midi track: also NOT okay to me. a synth is intuitively NOT a track. however, both wave tracks and synthesizers (but currently not midi tracks!) are "things which can be automated". i think we should offer the user such categories greetings flo > > My 0.02 € (whatever it's currently worth) > > Dennis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Lmuse-developer mailing list > Lmu...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmuse-developer |