Re: [LAD] minimal LV2

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@...>
Cc: Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Monday, June 14, 2010 - 8:55 am

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:

Patrick, great read.

And the challenge you've expressed so well here is also applicable to
the relationship between devs and users too, with expectations on both
sides that regularly fail to connect. If talented chaps like yourself
and Fons find the coding side of documentation for LV2 confusing, then
a user wanting to get involved in assisting devs with their projects,
with the altruistic intent of making a contribution, is almost
certainly doomed to be bewildered at the first hurdle. This is more
common than devs might think, and there's several projects i've looked
at and tried, that could seriously do with dumbed down examples of
.conf, .rc, .xml, .something, files to at least give users a start, so
they then in turn can give something back, as they grow to understand
the app they're trying to use. An example of how this works well is
jconvolver, with easy to follow examples, and a chance for
stubborn/foolish/brave/pick one chaps like me then able to, in turn.
offer help to new users, and so the process continues. A poor example
of this is jackmixdesk, with a vital disconnect at the important stage
of trying to use the app, as the "dumb user" walkthrough of the actual
process of using the app is missing, and the dev seems to have since
moved on.
The result is a significant, if modest, critical mass of users getting
enthusiastic about jconv (and i confess to telling everyone i can
about this very powerful app), and the opposite for jackmixdesk. No
offence to the JMD dev, as i'm sure it's a clever and ultimately
usuable app, but not in it's current state, (unless the dev has
expressly intended the app for personal use, or an academic exercise),
for lack of that walkthrough at the simplest level.

I don't doubt the intent of LV2 is to unify a format, nor do i doubt
the massive potential, and frankly, plain common sense in doing this.
But like the lack of user critical mass for many LA apps for the
reason i gave (and this view is not just mine, as a browse through
related fora will demonstrate), there is a disconnect of intent from
the community to come together (putting aside differences) in a
concentrated effort to bring such a potential winner for all, to a
reality that enables the less talented, or new on the block
contributors, to take this concept, and fly with it, as seems to be
the intent.
Dangerous Dave R continues to get my admiration and respect for taking
this on, along with the team of contributors who see the potential for
growth and success in a unified format. From the perspective of a user
who's had to face a multitude of bewildering options when using linux
audio apps, and the missing bits in the learning chain through the
assumption that we're all coders, or programming language aware, i
understand the confusion.
We're not all coders, and not all coders are as talented as many of
you chaps, at least not yet. Making it as easy as possible to get them
involved, and encouraging and supporting them to getting further
involved, seems to make sense, and unless i have this wrong, would
increase the core numbers of devs in the LA community, with the result
of more hands on deck to share some of the donkey work.

LV2 isn't just a viable plugin format, at least for me, as a user.
It's more important than that, as it represents part of the
fundamental fabric of LA, like jack. If there's a perception of
confusion at the dev level, then users are likely to be thoroughly
bewildered.
Contrary to what seems a common perception, the CALF standalone host
and plugins work well for me, and i defer to them more often than not,
if i need an effect of some sort. Why? Because although some
discussion might be viable as to their construction, or how "tidy"
they are code wise, they're USER friendly, to the point i don't have
to think about it.
Well done the CALF team, for presenting the "product" in a user
friendly environment.

If there's one thing devs can do to get more users involved, it's to
present dumbed down examples of use/workflow for their apps, for users
who know nothing about coding, and are unlikely to want to learn. The
modest time taken to do this will, imho, greatly increase the
potential for many more users and modest coders getting involved in
our little community, and create a larger group of users who can in
turn assist new users, and so on. Some of those users may be good
graphics artists, or competent at building websites, skilled at
marketing, good at fundraising etc...

I assume, in the above comments, growth and progress is the intent of
our community and it's core of extremely talented people, coder and
user alike.

2 roubles worth.

Alex.

--
www.openoctave.org

midi-subscribe@openoctave.org
development-subscribe@openoctave.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 10:25 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Igor Brkic, (Sat Jun 12, 11:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Olivier Guilyardi, (Sun Jun 13, 3:46 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Jun 12, 10:40 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 11:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Jun 12, 11:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Sat Jun 12, 11:10 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 11:26 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Sun Jun 13, 10:55 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Jeremy, (Sun Jun 13, 4:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 8:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Mon Jun 14, 7:04 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 10:04 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Jun 14, 11:27 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Mon Jun 14, 11:25 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 12:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Jun 14, 11:52 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Paul Davis, (Sun Jun 13, 9:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Jeremy, (Mon Jun 14, 12:23 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Geoff Beasley, (Mon Jun 14, 12:46 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Mon Jun 14, 12:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 12:53 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Mon Jun 14, 12:55 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Patrick Shirkey, (Mon Jun 14, 7:34 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Mon Jun 14, 8:55 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 9:40 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, drew Roberts, (Mon Jun 14, 3:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Jun 14, 3:39 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Mon Jun 14, 9:15 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Jun 14, 10:15 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Paul Davis, (Sun Jun 13, 10:02 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Olivier Guilyardi, (Sun Jun 13, 10:36 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, James Morris, (Sun Jun 13, 8:51 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Steve Harris, (Mon Jun 14, 6:31 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sun Jun 13, 3:09 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 1:04 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sun Jun 13, 4:09 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Paul Davis, (Sun Jun 13, 1:11 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sun Jun 13, 1:43 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, alex stone, (Sun Jun 13, 2:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sun Jun 13, 2:10 am)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, , (Sat Jun 12, 11:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] minimal LV2, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Jun 12, 11:07 pm)