forumuser840717 wrote:Whereas people who value function and reliabilty over looks in applications somewhat more pressured than podcasting tend to use the ugly one (or a few other equally visually uninspiring but effective alternatives). :beamup:
Oh well, I knew I was going to get one of these... :headbang:
No one was saying I (or anyone else) value looks more than functionality. :roll:
Of *course* production/live critical stuff needs to be clear and visually distinctive. But it can still be clear and perform that function without looking like it's been designed in the 80s for a 320x240 screen. I mean look at those bevels... :crazy:
Hey, if people don't care and it does the job, fine. But please don't think because it has to be designed for a particular purpose to favour usability and clarity etc means it also *has* to be ugly - it doesn't. Functionality doesn't preclude visual polish.
Now, Ferrago would not be my recommendation if you were running live sound effects for an Olympic broadcast, no. But not many of us are doing that, and for the uses I was citing, it's a great solution for Mac users from a great Mac development house that is designed well and works great (firstly and most importantly), and doesn't look like it was designed out of a low-resolution screen of duplo bricks. :wave: