And now, everyone is being told they must read the manual.

Not exactly. I have always said one should read the manual. As a matter of fact in the sticky in the old Sonar forum its said there as well. How to get help. This is not new advice. I am not alone either in giving this advice.

In keeping with that it is always a good thing to first study the manual or any other material before posting a problem or question on this forum. We know that is not what happens here but those that do seem to have a much easier time in getting help. Then one can wonder how many have not needed to post because they did read the manual.

mike_mccue



"CW thinks a manual is important... But you couldn't know that because you never have looked at it."


Egregious example of a Strawman Fallacy.

A desperate move.

It may seem like a useful last resort when one can't stand their ground in a debate, but it's not.

You attack me for some alleged taking things out of context when here you do it blatantly.

Nor saying something is fallacious makes it so. There is nothing in that post that comes close to what you continue to allege

JonD


The title of this thread should really be "I haven't read the manual, and I shouldn't have to!".
 
At least then we could agree on what we disagree about!
 
 

LOL!

FastBikerBoy


What's a manual?

It's an old fashioned paper weight.

I am surprised that so many are reluctant to read the manual. These days with software being so somplex it is almost a given that you have to read the manual. I read somwhere in an article about this very thing that you should read the manual for your software once a year from cover to cover.

Some programs are intuitive and some are not. Sonar is not (naturally) one of those. StudioOne is however. Much more so, but it is still complex and to realise its full potential you still need to read the manual.

Why read the manual every year. Because if you don't, you run the risk of only ever using a (small) portion of the programs capablitlies. And while many of us don't necessarily need to know everything a program does in order to do the work we do, there is always stuff in there which will help you a lot in the things that you do use regularly.

I am using PT9 (on loan) at the moment on a project I am doing. It is fairly intuitive but I do come across the odd thing that stops me in my tracks. But it is so easy to open the help file, search it and the answer is right there in front of you. Just minimise it a bit so you can see both the manual and your session at the same time. Do what is says and you are away! The OP could have done that easily and found the answer fast.

A while ago Roland employed me to demo the V Studio 700 system. But I had to learn it all in a very short space of time. Do you think fiddling around with something like that would have solved my problem, no way known. I read the manual 3 times before I even turn it on. But once I did I was using like a PRO (as good as Seth!) I cut right to the chase and got down to it faster than any intuitive playing around would have ever achieved.

John

mike_mccue



"CW thinks a manual is important... But you couldn't know that because you never have looked at it."


Egregious example of a Strawman Fallacy.

A desperate move.

It may seem like a useful last resort when one can't stand their ground in a debate, but it's not.

You attack me for some alleged taking things out of context when here you do it blatantly.

Nor saying something is fallacious makes it so. There is nothing in that post that comes close to what you continue to allege

 
 
I, for one, hate the mouse. I can accomplish almost (I said almost) every task in most windows programs I use without touching that piece of garbage. Pain in the thumb and index finger actually.
Give me keyboard shortcuts anyday. Moving away from the stupid mouse is a step forward in my mind, not backwards.
You don't see a mouse in Star Trek, do you?
 

pwal


why can't it be on the inspector/whatever/wherever and on a right-clicker?

/thread
 
Q.

Jeff Evans


I am surprised that so many are reluctant to read the manual. These days with software being so somplex it is almost a given that you have to read the manual. I read somwhere in an article about this very thing that you should read the manual for your software once a year from cover to cover.

Some programs are intuitive and some are not. Sonar is not (naturally) one of those. StudioOne is however. Much more so, but it is still complex and to realise its full potential you still need to read the manual.

Sorry Jeff, I strongly disagree with this.  In the past I've always found Sonar to be very intutive.  That's why I bought it.  Moreover, the manual (or help file) is not very helpful at all.  See my earlier post for examples.

I read page 1 and then coulldn't do it to myself to read further. But I do want to comment.

I have found that the best possible way for users of previous versions to move forwrd with SONAR X1 is to print out the Keyboard Shortcut pages, laminate them and have them open next to your QWERTY keyboard.

FOR ME that small amount of reading makes so much possible. It will let me know which screen/window/menu will open with which shortcut. As most of the windows/dialog boxes that open are already familiar as they existed in previous version I"m immediately familair with most of the content and now the new context.

It's a great way to learn the program without having to dive into the rather large manual and when I need to followup my new knowledge I can do a search in the manual to get greater detail.

It works really well for me and I suggest that those folks finding X1 difficult to learn; stop arguing with software as it now is what it is and we have no choice but to learn X1 if we want to use X1. If you want to stay with SONAR 8.5.3 then you don't need to learn X1 obviously.

And there's no point any more in wishing for something that aint going to happen.

With Benstat's added menu helper in SONAR Plus and Panup's mods I think we've got about as good a compromise as we're going to get.

John

mike_mccue



"CW thinks a manual is important... But you couldn't know that because you never have looked at it."


Egregious example of a Strawman Fallacy.

A desperate move.

It may seem like a useful last resort when one can't stand their ground in a debate, but it's not.

You attack me for some alleged taking things out of context when here you do it blatantly.

Nor saying something is fallacious makes it so. There is nothing in that post that comes close to what you continue to allege

This is a very simple issue John.

You response to Twigman "CW thinks a manual is important... But you couldn't know that because you never have looked at it." is based on information you simply made up out of thin air.

Twigman has clearly said he has looked at the X1 manual.

"Oh I've looked at it but generally when I have I have found it unhelpful.
Help items are indexed in places one would not expect to find them and instructions assume many things.......such as 'in the clip properties dialog' without actually telling you how to find and open said dialog."

"I think if you have to RTM to find something that you have looked for already [and what you seek is there] then that is a pretty firm indication that the software is illogical and counter-intutive. "

"X1 is though, the first iteration of Sonar that I have used that is making me need to read the manual - not because it is complex but because my intuition can no longer work Sonar."

He also has clearly said he never before felt a need too... but that is not a mutually exclusive concept... that doesn't mean Twigman has never looked at a manual.

"I never had to read the manual with previous Sonars[ not even when I first got Sonar]...everything was logical, intutive and where I expected it to be. Mostly, I just found stuff where I expected it to be and it did what i expected it to do. "

"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."

If you were to merely state your opinion instead of continuing to present a contrary opinion to some self-synthesized circumstance you are posing with the use of the Strawman fallacy you will find that your opinion will stand as irrefutable. You are capable of offering an opinion that is irrefutable... but you are not doing so.

I am happy to silently witness your expression of your opinions or insights but I find it egregious that you do not confine yourself to voicing your opinion.

You repeatedly illustrate some circumstance that you make up in your own mind and then you demonstrate that you have a counter argument against that circumstance while posturing as if you are speaking in response to someone else's interests. It creates the appearance that you have contributed some insight that your antagonist should appreciate but in fact you are merely arguing with your own imagination.

The only people who will seem to be influenced by an argument based on such a fallacy are already predisposed to the opinion you represent. It is unlikely that an argument offered to an antagonist that is based on a Strawman fallacy will result in anything more than a heated refusal to agree. That is why people in this thread have had to inform you that they never said something you imply that they have said.

For example;

"Where did I ever claim they got rid of right-click menus entirely? All I stated was they removed options from them, against the windows GUI convention that the right click menu shows you all the options you have for that particular object.

Are you trying to start arguments here? Perhaps you should take a break from this thread."

It is a bad habit to use the Strawman fallacy, especially if you have become so accustomed to doing it that you can not recognize or admit when you do it.

There is plenty of opportunity on this forum for discussion and friendly disagreement but the Strawman fallacy is a tactic that backs the parties you are disagreeing with into a corner where the only reasonable reaction is for someone to point out that there is no merit to your presentation simply because you are citing circumstances that do not exist and there fore your presentation is not based on logic but rather a fallacy.

If you were to take better care while attempting to voice your opinions clearly then I can suggest that you will have a much better chance of persons, such as myself, according your opinions the respect they deserve.

You can find examples of persons who I have happily disagreed with in this very thread. We simply disagree in a friendly manner and in those circumstances neither party is trying to force some make believe imaginary statement upon the other.

I hope I have been clear. I am hardly attacking you. I am simply defending my interests in SONAR's development against mischaracterizations that you seem to be attempting to use to further your interests.


regards,
mike

My favorite part of this thread was on the first page where John said that if you don't know where something is in the new version of the program, you need to look it up in the manual.

THEN, from that point on, it's intuitive.

Come on John...admit it......you're a U.S Congressman, aren't you? 

Mork calling Orson, come in Orson. Mork calling Orson, come in Orson.

If you were to take better care while attempting to voice your opinions clearly then I can suggest that you will have a much better chance of persons, such as myself, according your opinions the respect they deserve.

Mike at this point I don't care what you think about my posts. All you keep doing is asserting something that is totally wrong. You continue to recite the same non sense even though you know it doesn't apply.  I have no idea why you have decided to do this except that it seems you have no good refutation of the points I have made. It is clear that you are the one that is using the "strawman" fallacy and only you. It is a tactic to acuse another of doing what you are doing to make it look like you are not employing that tactic.

I think in the future it would be best if you are ignored by me and I by you.

FastBikerBoy

I think in the future it would be best if you are ignored by me and I by you.

What? And spoil the entertainment for the rest of us?

It may be entertaining to you and others but to me its very sad. Its sad that a respected member is coming on this forum not to help others or to learn things but simply to make specious arguments about logic. To me its like watching the breakdown of a friend that should not be happening.

Wasn't Strawman in the Wizard of Oz? I get confused, easily most of the time.