Customization or the lack thereof.

Standardization - is it a bad thing?

I remember learning how to make my first MacDonald's Cheesburger.  The first day of the job, I was the "dressing" guy.  As the bun (the crown, I learned) came off the grill two dozen to a tray, I was to take the mustard squirter and give it one pull of the trigger and three yellow dots of mustard would be applied to the bun.  Then I was instructed to take the Ketchup squirter and one shot of red sauce was applied.  Then precisely one pickle slice dead center.  After that, one slice of cheese placed evenly on the bun.  Every time, precisely in that order.

Well of course I had to express why does it matter what order I do this?  It's all going down the same hole eventually.

It was standardization.  And when three teen age guys were working as a team, you had to be able to see where the team was at in the production of a cheeseburger and be able to jump in at the next step in order to feed that long line of folks at the serving window.

Has anyone here ever have to teach someone SONAR?  I mean there are at least three ways to approach every task.   I've taught a couple of guys (paid) the ins and outs of SONAR and I know what the faster ways to do things are but if you are going to get to the same end, is it like mustard then ketchup then pickle then cheese?

Do all these various paths ultimately lead to clutter and disorganization as a legitimate complaint?  Will a lack of customization actually be better for someone in the long run if "production of a finished product" is the main concern?

I think that the reorganization of some of the menus are actually forcing me to improve.  I know some are mouse-centric but I think the more you become QWERTY keyboard proficient the more work you will get done.

Sure, I'd like to be able to customize some things myself.  Colors for example.  But mainly so that I can read certain labels or help bring my eye to certain items in the Track View.

Is a lean, mean GUI more efficient?  And more professional in appearance?  I'm sure there will be differing views of this.

I bet if you could do an accurate poll of the total number of Sonar users, you would find, overwhelmingly they prefer the new look and functionality.  It wreaks of modern aesthetics and efficiency.  Thank God.  

daveny5


I think standardization is good for some things, but not others. I think its good for hardware to be standardized otherwise disk drives wouldn't all fit in the cases or rack modules wouldn't fit in the racks. Windows was an attempt to standardize the computer interface so that all programs had a similar look and feel. So in that sense, Sonar is standardized. However, creating software is an art and not a science. I get annoyed when people refer to the Sonar programmers as bakers. They are not bakers. If anything they are cooks because as everyone know, baking is a science, but cooking is an art. Baking requires you to follow a specific formula in order to get the desired result. You can't just throw a pinch of this and a pinch of that in a bread dough or you might not wind up with a loaf of bread. So the cooks that created X1 decided that now was the time to change how the Sonar GUI operated. They changed the recipe. We still have a recording and sequencing program, but now its got a different flavor. 

I think they made these changes with a look to the future. Sonar has always been on the bleeding edge. Sonar was one of the first 64-bit programs. It was also one of the first Windows 7 certified programs. In time we will get used to it and a year from now people will be saying they don't know how they ever used that tired old Sonar 8 interface. 

+1

I think that customization is a good thing and I hope that they will bring back more for us to customize ourselves to fit our own cooking needs.

keneds


Dave, You forgot the onions. That's the problem.

Nah, the meat guy handled that.  24 patties with the chopped onions went down at a time.

What if I don't like onions?

*Ahem* You're welcome! 


Seriously, you pose a good question.


But there are two ways to look at this:


Let's compare 8.5's GUI to X1 (whether you own the products or not is irrelevant)

For those that have never used the former program (myself included) may be intimidated by that "professional" looking GUI. For argument's sake, I will say take if a professional jumped from S1-X1, who feel intimidated; however, he'd take time to learn it to alleviate the intimidation. Even the simplest programs whether it be in looks or functionality (CW lower end products), may be intimidating.

1. It's kind of like looking at a mixer. (This isn't a shot at the CV) When starting out, many probably just manipulate the (master) volume fader cause it's right there. Expand it to a 24-48 track mixer and you'll have a hard time finding that one fader. If Robin doesn't mind, he said, when explaining about the TTS-1, that it's just ONE strip repeated multiple times. Many of us see this as trivial, but I'm trying to make a point.

Though a mixer is just repeated strips, imagine if the operator "customized" it. I don't just mean labeling each of the pots and pans (pun intended) on each strip? He/She would go crazy trying to etch all the labeling. Obviously, you can not reduce the quantity of strips on a physical mixer, but if the operator just made two modifications to each strip with the FULL mixer instead of the reciprocating amount given the inverse, hassle would be very little to non-existent.

It's the same with the now "consolidated" menus and with the "real-time" Smart Tool. I think where folks are frustrated is with not yet being acquainted with it. I'm sure Brandon played with it alot, despite knowing how it works and what he could do with it before he made the videos for us. New programs or new anything takes awhile to get used to.

2. With that aside, going back to the customized GUI: I understand the "you should want to make music, not rainbows" argument. This is like folks who listen to "complex" music (instrument count wise) saying that you don't need all that. They're right! You really only need one instrument, but then you get into if one can use it well or not. (I hope it doesn't get that way with software. "I use *DAW) better than you) However, you could say the same for classical piano music (you don't need to read a book to play a song), etc, etc.

If you think about it, even with the simplest of apps, you could still make music - like we still watched tv when we only had two colors - one, an absorption of all, the other, a reflection of all. Sure, no one is saying, go back to the former while we have the latter, but there are some that have and still watch in the former hue/saturation. Color or no color, you could still watch tv - unless something prevented that from happening.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for customization, but if I can still make music without it.

The other side, is obviously for the familiarity! I'm not going to be one that says: "go back to a previous program that has it" as that is no different then the "A DAW is not s notation program" argument as with either they are saying "go to another program to get what you need or want." That it also another problem though.

As someone said: Sonar (Cakewalk) is trying to be everything to everybody (Audio/MIDI/Video/Notation) and we all know that that is near possible. Do I want some of the features improved? Yes, but why would I frustrate myself with a feature, like notation - in Sonar - which isn't up to par when I can use the specific apps (Selibus, Finale) using them in conjunction with Sonar. I mean, who would use a shovel to dig a massive hole when you can use a bulldozer? Both can move dirt, but which tool does it more efficiently though it is probably more complicated to use? As with the mixer, it'd be unwise to tear apart the bulldozer to just use the piece that does the shoveling when I could just as easily use the shovel.

Given this analogy, X1, though it took away the "non-vital" pieces, it kept the vital pieces. Buttons and levers I don't need use are gone, as I don't need but two anyway. One to turn the bulldozer on and off and one to operate the "shovel."

Then, there's that old saying: "Too much of a good thing ..." (in this case customization)

So is customization good or bad? It's neither, but do we wanna make rainbows or music? Besides, isn't standard music notation just two colors? It's more if you customize the highlighted notes to display rainbow colors or pront out the score in color; however, I doubt composers, musicians, performers read or write music in technicolor.

Mod Bod


Standardization - is it a bad thing?

I remember learning how to make my first MacDonald's Cheesburger.  The first day of the job, I was the "dressing" guy.  As the bun (the crown, I learned) came off the grill two dozen to a tray, I was to take the mustard squirter and give it one pull of the trigger and three yellow dots of mustard would be applied to the bun.  Then I was instructed to take the Ketchup squirter and one shot of red sauce was applied.  Then precisely one pickle slice dead center.  After that, one slice of cheese placed evenly on the bun.  Every time, precisely in that order.

Well of course I had to express why does it matter what order I do this?  It's all going down the same hole eventually.

It was standardization.  And when three teen age guys were working as a team, you had to be able to see where the team was at in the production of a cheeseburger and be able to jump in at the next step in order to feed that long line of folks at the serving window.

Has anyone here ever have to teach someone SONAR?  I mean there are at least three ways to approach every task.   I've taught a couple of guys (paid) the ins and outs of SONAR and I know what the faster ways to do things are but if you are going to get to the same end, is it like mustard then ketchup then pickle then cheese?

Do all these various paths ultimately lead to clutter and disorganization as a legitimate complaint?  Will a lack of customization actually be better for someone in the long run if "production of a finished product" is the main concern?

I think that the reorganization of some of the menus are actually forcing me to improve.  I know some are mouse-centric but I think the more you become QWERTY keyboard proficient the more work you will get done.

Sure, I'd like to be able to customize some things myself.  Colors for example.  But mainly so that I can read certain labels or help bring my eye to certain items in the Track View.

Is a lean, mean GUI more efficient?  And more professional in appearance?  I'm sure there will be differing views of this.

I think it is more efficient, yes qwerty is my god, but I can certainly relate to wanting it.............................wait for it..................."your" way

rbowser


Pretty good stuff, Rus - At the end, about music notation being in just two colors--hmmm, but that's not music, that's just standardized notation.  We're talking about the world of creating music digitally where theoretically there are no boundaries to what it sounds like or ways in which to make it.

And - "...I doubt composers, musicians, performers read or write music in technicolor..." ---I'm pretty sure some great composers have both read and written music in technicolor that only they could see!

Randy B.

I'm sure there are some that have done that, too, but that as you and the idea of this thread is pertaining to. Standardization. I used the hyperbole or misnomer to prove that point. And despite not giving a quantity of these people, I certainly did not mean all - I didn't use that at all because I thought it was a given that I was being slightly facetious. I would mind dabbling in some "Rainbow (Display) Music", but that's isn't me. I'm not knocking it though. 


I also realize the many avenues in which music is made, but there are people out there who still swear that rap is NOT music because it doesn't have the "traditional" or "standardized" elements among many other non-musical reasons. If this is true, what is a song because the "standard" def. is: "A poem with music behind it." It says nothing about the poem needing to be "sung." That isn't to say that people are "rapping" at poetry slams, but given what the standard definition of rapping is - despite it not being Enimem or Flo Rida. Heck, some singers "rap" while carrying a tune. Is this one, the other or both? (Not to be confused with the "sing/rap" style)


I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm just saying how easily it is to blur things. Like I did, erroneously, but unintentionally with my previous comment you quoted.

DeeS


Actually I'm with you Randy. I would like some customization such as a floating Toolbar that can have the buttons I use the most put on it. You know like the SAVE button. I really can't believe that an action as critical as saving doesn't have a Button in the Control Panel.
My hope is that we are at the beginning of a new design and such customization is following shortly. (fingers crossed) 
  
 
My guess is they are trying to lead us to useing the auto save as primary and file-save here and there as needed.

nighthadfallen


  efficiency.   

So hiding functions away on myriad menus that were previously easily accessible by the click of a mouse on a button right by where you are working is efficient, is it?

Someone needs to buy you a dictionary.

I haven't eaten anything from MacDonald's or any similar assembly-line fast-food kind of place for a long, long time, and I never worked for one either - but I remember someone telling me that the trick was to order a standard menu item with some arbitrary change, say no pickle or no mustard or onions or whatever; that meant that it had to be done right then, from the beginning, and you would get it fresh, instead of something that might or might not have been sitting in a delivery queue for 10 minutes. 

Not sure if this adds anything to the analogy, but I do notice that someone has started a project to add in some customizable 'solutions' to things that they miss in the new interface... and the word 'skinnable' has been used... 


edit: ahh, I see mudgel got there first, it was benstat's project that I was talking about

My own view on software design is that a customisable option is more often than not (but not always) a sign that something has been under-designed for its purpose. Like "Man, I can't figure out where these toolbars should go, let's give that problem to the user." It can often be the very opposite of user-friendliness.

I also find that a highly personalised workspace doesn't propagate well (this is more relevant to the standardisation point). For years now, I've done as few customisations as possible to the applications and OSes I use, which makes it easier for me to work somewhere else, or for someone to come in from outside and work with my set-ups.

Hang on. Customising the layout of the tools and actually using the capabilities of the tools are two entirely different things.

Well, sorry if you failed to understand me there John T. There was an argument presented by way of an analogy. The argument is non sequitur the analogy, you're right, is just an analogy.

Glad to see high standards are being maintained and you're providing your normal level of input to insightful, discursive, dialogue around here.

Child

When someone mentions the standardization of Windows OS navigation it might be helpful to acknowledge that Millions of dollars were spent on focus groups and that the research was conducted scientifically so to avoid false conclusions that are the result for fashion or whims.

Apple does a great job too.

That is why we have soothing aquamarine screen displays, easy to read fonts, and contrast in the GUI employed specifically to draw the eye around the screen.

This is the result of science and 3000 years of 2d design experience rather than a dogmatic conformation to some fashionable vogue.

If Cakewalk doesn't want to provide good solid design as their best choice... then it should allow end users to provide good solid design for them selves.

best regards,
mike