[ardour-dev] Proposed editing mode, for users with heavy editing needs

[vanDongen/Gilcher]

On Tuesday 18 October 2005 08:28, AES_24_96 wrote:
> I dont want to end up having to move two different things to make a
> playback and zoom center position. 

Why do you need to now?



snip..

> And it can be eye opening to see just how much a GUI has to do with
> workflow. We should probably add ardour to the click count and see.
> Nothing I propose would change ardour * IN ANY WAY * for the users who
> like it as is.
>

Well what you are proposing is a massive amount of work for the developers. I 
for one, am more interested in improving the automation editing than adding 
an another type of edit-mode to make the transition for some new users 
easier.
I agree that the gui has massive influence on workflow, and that for a program 
intended for intensive use, the gui should optimized. 

Personally I think keyboard actions are far quicker than mouse movement.
When I am "speed-editing" I want to keep the mouse pointer near the area I am 
working on, and control the snap-settings, the zoom, the playhead position 
etc,etc with the keyboard, or with keyboard mouse combinations.
I find that with the current editor I can do that, whereas with what you 
describe I would loose certain very common actions, so that they would have 
to be done through the context menu. I also like the fact that the playhead 
can be set to return to its starting point whenever you press stop. And that 
it won't jump around if you click. Basically all click actions apply to the 
regions, the rest I can do with the keyboard. 

Not that there aren't a few things missing IMHO. It is just that the things I 
find most missing are not on your wishlist at all :)

> For instance, the action of making a buss in ardour,
> then assigning a channel postfader send to that bus, is unbeleivably time
> consuming. It would take a move to the track header, a click on the pan
> fader and a click on the send of your choice. 
Given the many possibilies in ardour to configure and route these things, I 
don't see how that can possibly be enough except for the most basic case.
How do you decide how many channels the bus has for instance.
So adding a track or a bus will always need some dialog to give the number of 
channels. 
Same for adding a send. You have to tell the program how many channels the 
send is, and what its destination is.
Anyway I just tried it, and it was not time consuming at all. Two small popup 
windows. Given that changing/modifying the routing of a session is not 
something you do constantly, I think it is ok.





> We in this world, especially music types like to say everything is equal.
> Religion, color, music, politics, whatever. But it inst always the case
> with software. ALL software can be improved. Yet at the same time as the
> improvement, the software can stay EXACTLY the same. You can have both
> in one app
>

Well, as I mentioned the code base has to change. And gui code is biggest part 
of the program. 

> A few apps lately have supported "importing key preferences"
>
> Sonar for example, changes keys and other factors to whatever app you
> are used to working in. I dont think you have a problem with the keys
> part, I think you object to the "and other factors". Just don't switch
> to it. No harm no foul, noone's forcing you.
>
True, and you are of course free to code the additional interface and try to 
get it incorporated in the main code, or to release your own version of 
ardour. It is gpl after all. :)


G