5:39 p.m.
I had posted on fedora-devel mailing list about this idea a while ago,
but the discussion didn't last long:
http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/266281-adding-new-group-d...
In short, currently all our audio/video players/editors are cluttering
the Multimedia group of the desktop menu. Since players and editors
are very different in nature and Audio/Video creation software have
their own target audience, I am proposing to list them under a
different group in the desktop menu. This way both type of
applications will become more accessible.
I am primarily interested in Audio Creation software and currently we
have enough packages to have our own group:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AudioCreation
To achieve this we will need to modify the desktop files of our
packages to add some category which will be picked up by the menu
applets and place them in the Audio Creation group.
I am planning to make a new feature draft page on Fedora wiki in the
near future and present it to FESCo so that we can have a Fedora
Studio by F-12. There are a few choices we need to make along the way:
- Should we include Video creation applications in this group too?
- What shall we call the group in the menu? Studio, Audio Creation,
A/V Creation...?
- What desktop file category(ies) shall we use? The standard
categories we can use are Midi, Mixer, Sequencer, Tuner,
AudioVideoEditing. We can also use some artificial category such as
X-Studio, X-AudioCreation, ... Note that when a desktop file contains
AudioVideo the application goes to the Multimedia group.
Who would want to participate in this project? Please share your
comments, opinions, ...
Orcan
4:55 p.m.
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:39 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
I had posted on fedora-devel mailing list about this idea a while
ago,
but the discussion didn't last long:
http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/266281-adding-new-group-d...
In short, currently all our audio/video players/editors are cluttering
the Multimedia group of the desktop menu. Since players and editors
are very different in nature and Audio/Video creation software have
their own target audience, I am proposing to list them under a
different group in the desktop menu. This way both type of
applications will become more accessible.
I am primarily interested in Audio Creation software and currently we
have enough packages to have our own group:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AudioCreation
To achieve this we will need to modify the desktop files of our
packages to add some category which will be picked up by the menu
applets and place them in the Audio Creation group.
I am planning to make a new feature draft page on Fedora wiki in the
near future and present it to FESCo so that we can have a Fedora
Studio by F-12.
Planet CCRMA has had this (a custom menu) for years. Otherwise the
"Sound and Video" menu becomes pretty much unusable once you install all
the available packages. It would be good if you could start from this
package, perhaps? And/or maintain backwards compatibility, I'd be game
to modify what I'm using to match...
There are a few choices we need to make along the way:
- Should we include Video creation applications in this group too?
- What shall we call the group in the menu? Studio, Audio Creation,
A/V Creation...?
Multimedia Creation?
Content Creation? (too broad perhaps)
- What desktop file category(ies) shall we use? The standard
categories we can use are Midi, Mixer, Sequencer, Tuner,
AudioVideoEditing. We can also use some artificial category such as
X-Studio, X-AudioCreation, ... Note that when a desktop file contains
AudioVideo the application goes to the Multimedia group.
Maybe get some inspiration for categories from the planetccrma-menus
package in Planet CCRMA?
Who would want to participate in this project? Please share your
comments, opinions, ...
Count me in...
-- Fernando
3:24 p.m.
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:39 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> - What desktop file category(ies) shall we use? The standard
> categories we can use are Midi, Mixer, Sequencer, Tuner,
> AudioVideoEditing. We can also use some artificial category such as
> X-Studio, X-AudioCreation, ... Note that when a desktop file contains
> AudioVideo the application goes to the Multimedia group.
Maybe get some inspiration for categories from the planetccrma-menus
package in Planet CCRMA?
Oh yes, I forgot about that package because I have been only
installing individual packages from PlanetCCRMA since Fedora 4 or 5.
Although that package actually *is* what I am talking about, it would
be nicer to provide this classification at the Fedora level, so that
packages from different repos don't end up at different groups which
would be going in the exact opposite direction we want to go.
I will start writing the wiki page this week and report the status
once I have enough material that can benefit from feedback.
Cheers,
Orcan
10:34 a.m.
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 16:24 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:39 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> - What desktop file category(ies) shall we use? The standard
>> categories we can use are Midi, Mixer, Sequencer, Tuner,
>> AudioVideoEditing. We can also use some artificial category such as
>> X-Studio, X-AudioCreation, ... Note that when a desktop file contains
>> AudioVideo the application goes to the Multimedia group.
>
> Maybe get some inspiration for categories from the planetccrma-menus
> package in Planet CCRMA?
>
Oh yes, I forgot about that package because I have been only
installing individual packages from PlanetCCRMA since Fedora 4 or 5.
Although that package actually *is* what I am talking about, it would
be nicer to provide this classification at the Fedora level, so that
packages from different repos don't end up at different groups which
would be going in the exact opposite direction we want to go.
Of course, if it gets into Fedora proper then it is a major win for
everybody. The suggestion/reminder is only for inspiration/backwards
compatibility if possible.
I will start writing the wiki page this week and report the status
once I have enough material that can benefit from feedback.
-- Fernando
12:51 a.m.
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 16:24 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> I will start writing the wiki page this week and report the status
> once I have enough material that can benefit from feedback.
I did start writing the wiki page [1] last week but I got stuck at one point.
It is not easy to make a good and fair classification. If we just take
the AudioCreation software away and make a new group with them, and
leave all the Audio/Video players, Digital Media and Video production
software in Multimedia, it will be bad design. We need a better
solution, which is not that easy to find.
These are the types of software we have in the Multimedia group.
- Audio Player
- Video Player
- Both Audio and Video Player
- Digital (optical) Media Creation
- Digital (optical) Media Ripping
- Video Creation
- Subtitle software
- Audio Creation (which itself has many sub-categories)
So how shall we do the branching?
* A starting point would be separating Audio and Video. Then make
"Players" and "Creation" subgroups an each. But then where will the
CD/DVD creation/ripping stuff will go?
* Another starting point would be to separate Creation stuff
altogether, leaving all the players in Multimedia. Then the Creation
group will contain both Audio and Video stuff. This is not a bad thing
to do if the subgrouping is made logical.
* Yet another starting point is, do not create another main group.
Just do all the subgrouping inside Multimedia.
I really can't decide which of the three to pick. Can I get some
opinions here? In all the cases, we will have the issue of having some
packages that belong to multiple subgroups. How shall we handle this?
Orcan
PS: I'm also CC'ing planetccrma list in case some users want to share
their opinions.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraStudio
10:37 a.m.
On 17/05/09 15:51, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
These are the types of software we have in the Multimedia group.
The group seems to be called Sound & Video on my machine. And there is
currently too many items in the menu to fit 2x screen height (2x768).
* Yet another starting point is, do not create another main group.
Just do all the subgrouping inside Multimedia.
I'm thinking grouping as
consumers (ie viewers, players), and producers
(pre: capture|record|import|rip, manipulation: editing|compile|render,
post: convert|production|output to file|streamer|titling).
Some applications would cover all three areas, which makes this tricky
(jacks of all trades). And some apps just tie multiple other apps
together (DVD::RIP).
Here is a possible layout; it is really just to solicit more opinions:
---
bash-4.0$ tree --dirsfirst .
===
`-- Sound & Video
|-- Capture & Import
| |-- AV Demultiplexing
| |-- Audio Recording
| |-- CD Ripper
| |-- DVD Ripper
| |-- Flash Get
| |-- Stream Recorder
| |-- VNC Recorder
| `-- Video Capture
|-- Editing & Conversion
| |-- Audacity
| |-- Blender ?
| |-- DVBcut
| |-- Hydrogen
| `-- Kino
|-- Live Gig
|-- Output Generation
| |-- AV Multiplexing
| |-- Audio Streamer
| |-- CD Writer
| |-- DVD Subtitler
| |-- DVD Writer
| |-- Format Changer
| |-- K3B
| `-- Video Streamer
|-- Tools
| |-- Instrument Tuner
| `-- Metronome
|-- Audio Mixer and Volume Control
|-- Audio Player
|-- Media Library
|-- Video & TV Playback
`-- Video Player
===
Cheers, DaveT.
11:35 p.m.
Hello folks,
I updated the wiki page. Based on the feedback I got (especially
David's opinions were quite inspiring) and stealing some ideas from
planetccrma-menu package, I came up with this outline:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraStudio
Note that this is by no means the final draft. Fell free to comment
about it or even edit it yourself. Once (and if) we arrive at a
general agreement here, I will bring the proposal into FESCo's
attention.
One thing you will notice in my categorization is: I didn't put any
player in a subcategory. I thought that the players are the most
commonly used application type and putting them directly in the
Multimedia (Sound&Video in Gnome) group will make them easier to find.
Let me know if you don't agree with me on this or on anything else.
Cheers,
Orcan
6:32 a.m.
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 16:24 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> I will start writing the wiki page this week and report the status
>> once I have enough material that can benefit from feedback.
I did start writing the wiki page [1] last week but I got stuck at one point.
It is not easy to make a good and fair classification. If we just take
the AudioCreation software away and make a new group with them, and
leave all the Audio/Video players, Digital Media and Video production
software in Multimedia, it will be bad design. We need a better
solution, which is not that easy to find.
These are the types of software we have in the Multimedia group.
- Audio Player
- Video Player
- Both Audio and Video Player
- Digital (optical) Media Creation
- Digital (optical) Media Ripping
- Video Creation
- Subtitle software
- Audio Creation (which itself has many sub-categories)
So how shall we do the branching?
* A starting point would be separating Audio and Video. Then make
"Players" and "Creation" subgroups an each. But then where will the
CD/DVD creation/ripping stuff will go?
* Another starting point would be to separate Creation stuff
altogether, leaving all the players in Multimedia. Then the Creation
group will contain both Audio and Video stuff. This is not a bad thing
to do if the subgrouping is made logical.
* Yet another starting point is, do not create another main group.
Just do all the subgrouping inside Multimedia.
I really can't decide which of the three to pick. Can I get some
opinions here? In all the cases, we will have the issue of having some
packages that belong to multiple subgroups. How shall we handle this?
Good points, and David Timms also got a nice approach in another mail
thread (even though, maybe a bit too extensive maybe?)
Some software can be really difficult to categorise, especially if aligned
along these directions. I'm just thinking out loud here now, please shoot
these ideas down if they are useless.
We are serving segments, one is big already and the other segment has a
potential to be just as big: Consumer and Pro ... what do I mean here?
Consumer: The "normal" computer user who wants different players, sounds,
and video, and just playing with things just for fun.
Pro: Those who want to use the computer for serious production, like
composers, musicians, DJ's, whatever who needs high-quality experience.
To oversimplify it: Consumers will be more than satisfied enough with
PulseAudio, while Pro users who most probably want Jack instead.
Could this be a better path to help grouping the software? F.ex. Totem,
VLC, MPlayer - in this scheme, a reasonable place would be a "Consumer"
group. While Rosegarden, Audacity, QSynth, different DJ software, Video
editing, etc might fit better into a "Pro" group. But let's not call
anything "Consumer" to the user, but rather stick to the "Sound &
Video"
group name as today.
These two groups could then have subgroups, like Video, Audio/MIDI ...
Maybe if more subgroups are wanted below this point, it should be
considered to have two main groups for the pro-segment, like "Pro-Audio",
"Pro-Video" and for consumer, a single "Sound & Video" group.
The reason for not splitting up "Sound & Video" is becuase: where would
VLC, MPlayer and Totem fit in, between audio and video ... For more single
directed applications in the "consumer" group, it could of course have
subcategories.
In this approach, the "Pro" categories could also show up in the menu when
Jack is installed. And as Jack most probably is a dependency to several
Pro-targeted software packages, you get everything in place at once.
Another thing for using the word "Pro" in these groups, is to emphasize
that Linux is not just for geeks and amateurs, and that even less (Linux?)
experienced pro-audio/video people will then catch the point - Linux might
also be something for them. For marketing people in the Linux world, using
the word "Pro" might be beneficial - as this description is still (I
believe) heavily used in the music and video world today.
But for a product to slip into the Pro-* groups, it really needs to be
high-quality piece of product - or else it can easily backfire again and
making Linux Pro-* effort a big joke.
Just my few cents
David S.
9:49 a.m.
On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:32:42 +0200, David Sommerseth wrote:
Some software can be really difficult to categorise, especially if
aligned along these directions. I'm just thinking out loud here now,
please shoot these ideas down if they are useless.
Just in case: nothing prevents you from putting one software package
into several groups, e.g., kdepim and rpm-build are listed in 3
different groups in comps-f10.xml.in
Cheers,
Christian
5450
days inactive
5472
days old
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Callum Lerwick -
Christian Iseli -
David Sommerseth -
Development discussions related to Fedora -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Orcan Ogetbil