Dear Linda, I whole-heartedly agree with your comments about user experience being very important to adoption of any user-oriented computing product.
One problem with GUIs is that they MUST be tailored to the way the user wants to, or needs to be trained to, work. Thus, the challenge becomes providing a comfortable environment - one that fits the way the developer is convinced will be convenient. The spin-off of this problem is that the developer resources then become diverted from core functionality to interface functionality. My favorite example is the plethora of accounting packages ... by GAAP principals, and by law, accounting within a country must conform to basic standards. Therefore Simply Accounting, Quick Books, Microsoft Money, etc. all MUST do exactly the same thing internally. Therefore the only difference is in the interface - and that is driven entirely by perceived convenience. Sadly, the [lack of] quality inherent in these products because of diversion of scare developer resources is well documented. Over the past 15 years, we have seen a number of changes: client-server; 3-tier; and most recently web-services and the service oriented architecture. In all of these, there is a clear separation between the functionality of the user interface and the functionality of the service provider (server or web service). In terms that might make more sense to your suggestion, Lilypond might best be considered a very advanced music typesetting service provider. The API (application programmer's interface) happens to be one of more .ly data files. There is, perhaps unfortunately, no supplied sample user interface - as those of us who have spent time with Lilypond have found that manual interaction directly at the API level is ultimately faster and more flexible than attempting to use a graphical UI. (I have also found this to be true in 90%+ of all applications I've used - command line IS faster, more robust, more flexible, less resource intensive and less conducive to error and physical [health] problems such as RSI, than GUI. It's just not as 'pleasant'.) As long as the API is accessible, there are opportunities for others to develop client portions - many in fact, that would make sense for specific situations. However, I can envision no single user interface that would conveniently run the gambit of capabilities that are in Lilypond (therefore there would need to be several interfaces) . The bickering of what is 'the right' interface for a situation - being heavily culturally influenced - could easily set back Lilypond development several years if the current Lilypond developers were to be involved. My personal conclusion: Let the graphic artists and user interface specialists do what they do best; let the Lilypond developers do what they do best; let the joining come at the API level - which is defined. Please do not take this as a negative to your comment - in fact it is the opposite. I just happen to believe that the Lilypond (server) side is not the right place. Perhaps at the Rosegarden (GUI) side, though. -- Proud user of Lilypond Music Typesetting Tools http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
