[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xougen] Sound and X

From: Tupshin Harper
Subject: Re: [xougen] Sound and X
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:11:38 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2

Patrick McFarland wrote:

On 10-Sep-2003, Tupshin Harper wrote:
Did you actually read all of the thread, including the various complications and issues that arise when you try to synchronize audio and video on a remote display if the sound server isn't an X extension? I'm not saying they are impossible to resolve any other way, but it certainly *adds* complexity to have the sound protocol be external to the display protocol.

Yes I did, and I realized people think X is more than it actually is.
X is a windowing system, not a sound manager. No matter the arguments the
pro-MAS side have used, you're all missing the point that its a windowing
system. This is why X was created, and this is what it is for.
Can you provide a theoretical reason why X should only encompass the visual and not the aural? When X was created, computer sound was practically non-existant, so of course it wasn't designed to include it. But today, substantial HCI reseach demonstrates that a multi-media approach to interface design is beneficial, and some applications (e.g. sound manipulation apps) absolutely require it. Given the obvious impossibility of having seamless low latency interactions between X and a sound server when the sound server is unaware of X events, what is the counter-argument that says that X shouldn't make this kind of interoperability easier? Yes, you can theoretically, and with difficulty, have an extenal(to X) sound server be aware of X events, but is that better than an X basd sound server?

Is an X application used by the blind all about graphics?

Why would someone blind be using a windowing system? Im not trying to be funny,
but I would think a blind person would be better off with something that doesnt
need the kind of spacial skills using X would need.
Why has so much effort gone into making Gnome accessible to the blind?

To me, X is an I/O mechanism. It presents information to the user, and it receives input from the user.

It has a I/O mechanism for graphics and user input. But that doesnt define what
X is.
Should X be the only "modern" windowing system that doesn't include sound as an intrinsic part of the same API? If so, why are the "other guys' doing it?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]