I have an anecdote to share:

When I first encountered Photoshop v3 16? years ago the person who presumed to teach it too me stated that he was amazed that I was using it to edit photos within moments of launching it for the first time.

He said "how did you know to do that?"

I said "It's a dodge tool... what else would I use to dodge?"

Then he said "how did you know to do that?"

I said "It's a crop tool... what else would I use to crop?"

Then he left while scratching his head. True story.



The funny thing is, I already new how to cut and paste.



All software applications share the commonality that they simply reference and manipulate databases... you may or may not know the details of how it is done... but there is a tremendous opportunity to intuit the shared functionality because the underlying premise is shared throughout the computing world.

That is why little children can teach them selves how to operate a computer effectively.


I am certainly not advocating against the presence or use of a manual. Indeed, I demand a manual with any appliance or application I own or operate and it frustrates me that each year we have to wait a few weeks after the product release before Cakewalk makes a manual available.

This discussion is about much more than judging a need for a manual to exist... any attempt to trivialize it to just that simple choice seems less than helpful.


all the best,
mike

Twigman


I never needed a manual to explain those terms, so I wouldn't expect a new user to either.
They are self apparent by the way they are named.
It's called literacy.

There is literacy, and there is obstinacy.  It seem apparent you have found a way to suffer from both.

Please go read the manual.  Or Scott's X1 Power book.  Or watch the Groove3 tutorial video.  

John
X1 has a new interface one needs to read the manual to find out how it now works.

which does not use any of the normally held Windows conventions and so is cumbersome and unintuitive to learn

forced to RTFM - what next?

I don't think I've ever used a Windows program that compelled me to read the manual to discover how to do simple tasks that the program was designed to do - Windows programs have a common logic in their layouts that is sadly lacking in X1.

"This is getting off the subject.  I am not advocating anything regarding right clicking. I am simply advocating that because X1 has a new interface one needs to read the manual to find out how it now works. Once one does, it makes a lot of sense. It is logical and further CW did not remove right clicking from X1. It is still there in some places. Whether right clicking is good or not was never the point. X1 is different from all past versions. To be aware of that opening the manual is a prerequisite. Or reading this forum at least. "


You couldn't be more incorrect.

[begin large text for the purpose of clarity]
This entire thread is about the removal of a right click function and it's replacement with the use of a keystroke or the choice to leave your inspector open.
[/ end large text]

All the rest of the stuff discussed doesn't lead to a conclusion that the thread has gone off topic no matter how persistently you attempt to define the topic.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge what they do not wish to acknowledge. It becomes tedious to discuss anything with someone who repeatedly makes stuff up via the Strawman fallacy whenever it suits their mood.

right click contest menus

right-click contest threads surely, herr freud?

"Really?  Come on.  More than half the conversation of this thread has been about new vs. old, despite what the OP might have intended.  To call out John at this juncture is ludicrous.  There are at least 10 posts in this thread that are as "off topic" as his most recent, many of them yours.   They all are valid in the context of this particular argument.  His points are as salient to this conversation as any."


I will submit that the posts of mine that are *off topic* were in reply to the various attempts to take it *off topic*.

Even my anecdote about photo shop was an attempt to illustrate how contextualization, in that example through the use of simple and easy to recognize icons that also had tool tips and context menus, has been a standard since the inception of Windows.

And furthermore, regardless of all the noise, distraction, and fallacies that have been introduced... I still clearly know what the thread is about: This thread is about the removal of a right click function and it's replacement with the use of a keystroke or the choice to leave your inspector open.

all the best,
mike

PS

"at this juncture is ludicrous."

I'll also point out that there is only once person in this entire thread who has suggested (and more than once I might add) that the subject of this thread has limits to what is and isn't off topic. Please don't mistake my identification of the threads central theme as a suggestion that the thread be restricted to some choice of topic.

Point in fact, I quite enjoyed learning about Borland's contribution to right click menus.

That's a dern good question... one I would have been asking in May 2009 during the planning meeting.

skyright?

mike_mccue


"This is getting off the subject.  I am not advocating anything regarding right clicking. I am simply advocating that because X1 has a new interface one needs to read the manual to find out how it now works. Once one does, it makes a lot of sense. It is logical and further CW did not remove right clicking from X1. It is still there in some places. Whether right clicking is good or not was never the point. X1 is different from all past versions. To be aware of that opening the manual is a prerequisite. Or reading this forum at least. "


You couldn't be more incorrect.

[begin large text for the purpose of clarity]
This entire thread is about the removal of a right click function and it's replacement with the use of a keystroke or the choice to leave your inspector open.
[/ end large text]

All the rest of the stuff discussed doesn't lead to a conclusion that the thread has gone off topic no matter how persistently you attempt to define the topic.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge what they do not wish to acknowledge. It becomes tedious to discuss anything with someone who repeatedly makes stuff up via the Strawman fallacy whenever it suits their mood.

Maybe your posts have been but not mine. The post you reference wasn't aimed at you anyway. My posts are in answer to another post. In fact all of them have been. They have a context with them and not with you necessarily.  The poster I quoted is the one it is addressed to and in answer to. But you knew that right? Or are you just being rude on purpose?

Seth told me I can not bicker with you.

I asked you some specific questions which you declined to answer.

I get to read and respond to what ever I wish.

But I am not allowed to let you goad me into the whole "rude" thing.

Good day sir.
mike

Couple things.

One when I first purchased Sonar it's because as other people have mentioned it was intutive.  There was very little reason to use the manual because most things worked just like I thought they should when I went to use them.  This was also the reason I didn't stick with Cubase (which I bought first) because it just didn't make sense.

Two X1 (for me) has gotten rid of a lot of that intutiveness.   Being able to pull up the clips menu, or add an envelope by right clicking are two great examples.  WORSE though, when you do try and use the manual it's not helpful at all.  I remember trying to figure out how to bounce to tracks, it says to look in the tracks menu.  Where is the tracks menu???   Oh I see they hid it somewhere instead of it being up top with all the other menu's WTF.   So they move stuff around, but then don't tell you where it's moved.   Pictures in this case would have been very helpful  (IE click here).

I think one goal when creating a program is to make it user friendly.  In general that means it should be intutiuve.  When usually means that it should work like most other programs (ie Cntrl C to copy etc).   And when a user does need to use the manual it should be clear.  Moreover, fix the freaken search function in the help.  That's probably the most useless search funciton I've ever used.


Some of the changes I've gotten used to know that I know where they are.  But others are just poorly implemented (like automation) and will need to be fixed ASAP. Because they really slow down workflow.

So to sum,
manauls are good but you shouldn't really need them.
Sonar's manual sucks.

The thread can not defend itself... so it's easy to feel like a winner!

 
ROTFLOL

PenguiN42


I think the whole "read the manual" thing here is a bit of a distraction. It really doesn't take reading the manual to figure out the inspector -- there are tutorial videos, marketing material, or even asking on these forums. Or context-sensitive help, search for "clip properties." I, too, was taken aback the first time I used X1 and right-clicked on a clip. But it took me about 2 minutes to find the inspector and understand how it worked. And I didn't read the manual, either.

However, it is a good point that there is a windows GUI convention that you right-click on objects to see everything you can do with them. Sonar X1 bucks that convention, in the name of de-cluttering menus. Bucking conventions such as this certainly does make an interface harder to learn, supposedly in the name of making it easier/faster to use in the long run (though the jury seems to still be out on whether it does). But either way, it's a tradeoff.

So, in conclusion, why can't we all just get along?

CW did not get rid of right clicking and getting a menu. Its still there. What is on that menu is up to the developers though. Those on this thread have you tried right clicking say on an audio track? A rather large menu pops up.

 

John

PenguiN42


I think the whole "read the manual" thing here is a bit of a distraction. It really doesn't take reading the manual to figure out the inspector -- there are tutorial videos, marketing material, or even asking on these forums. Or context-sensitive help, search for "clip properties." I, too, was taken aback the first time I used X1 and right-clicked on a clip. But it took me about 2 minutes to find the inspector and understand how it worked. And I didn't read the manual, either.

However, it is a good point that there is a windows GUI convention that you right-click on objects to see everything you can do with them. Sonar X1 bucks that convention, in the name of de-cluttering menus. Bucking conventions such as this certainly does make an interface harder to learn, supposedly in the name of making it easier/faster to use in the long run (though the jury seems to still be out on whether it does). But either way, it's a tradeoff.

So, in conclusion, why can't we all just get along?

CW did not get rid of right clicking and getting a menu. Its still there. What is on that menu is up to the developers though. Those on this thread have you tried right clicking say on an audio track? A rather large menu pops up.

agreed, it's just missing two options that I used to use quite often.  Add automation, and view clip info.   Even worse, they got rid of the alt+enter  shortcut to edit clip data.
  Which I also used quite often.
 

The Strawman Fallacy


"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"