Structural Reform of the Electronic Musical Instruments?

bitflipper


Could you elaborate, Mike? Perhaps with an example. 

Friendly names seem adequately friendly to me already. Perhaps they should greet me by name...

 
 
daveny5


"Move checked to top" works for output devices only. Its not needed for input devices because Sonar recognizes all inputs regardless of the order. There is a technique to it though. For example, if you have 3 outputs and you want to stack them in order, you would do this:


Original order:
3
2
1

Select 1 and click move to top.
Result:
1
3
2

Hold CTRL and select 1 and 2 and click move to top. 
If you don't select 1 again, then 2 will be put at the top. 
Result:
1
2
3

This hasn't changed since the original version of Cakewalk (pre-Sonar) so I've had a lot of practice with it.  They should probably make it drag and drop.

One question though - does anyone understand the subject line of this thread?

FastBikerBoy


Perhaps it is just my set up but I really don't understand what's wrong with the naming convention at the moment.

I think it could be improved by having a separate sub menu of mono & stereo inputs, but I can already name my inputs to whatever I want now, so I just don't get that part at all.  

mike_mccue

FastBikerBoy


Perhaps it is just my set up but I really don't understand what's wrong with the naming convention at the moment.

I think it could be improved by having a separate sub menu of mono & stereo inputs, but I can already name my inputs to whatever I want now, so I just don't get that part at all.  

This is the part where I mention that the addition of the suffix, or the prefix... I forget which... and the addition of the L and R nomenclature stuff isn't very friendly and you have the chance to reply "oh yes, if I were to mention that fact then my previous statement would actually be accurate."

Then you usually point out that I said suffix when I should have said prefix, or visa versa... I forget which it is... and then we go back to me thinking you are willing to forget about or celebrate all the SONAR work arounds and gotchas while you go back to thinking what ever it is that you actually like to think about.



It seems pretty obvious that you can not actually name the friendly names what you actually want unless you actually want the extra clutter that is the result of the super imposed  conventions for labeling that SONAR forces upon your choice.


I believe the need for Structural Reform of the Electronic Musical Instruments is a direct result of people thinking that seeming clever with excuse and denial is an effective way to distract people from reality.

I have brought up the friendly name issue, once again, because it is a classic example of a simple usability issue that should have been rolled out with no gotchas, but instead came with a great big "gotcha". 

The circumstance makes Roland and Cakewalk look like it can't seem to make an easy and obvious decision about a very simple and easy to anticipate expectation.

If you are going to roll out a feature named "friendly names" the names ought to actually seem friendly. Simple.




If Cakewalk can figure that out... well, that's a feature I would pay for, again. 




best regards,

mike

brundlefly

I guess I know what my system consists of, what the inputs are and what the outputs are. 

Just don't ever try retiring your current audio/midi interface for a significantly different model. Things get ugly fast for existing projects. 

bitflipper


Could you elaborate, Mike? Perhaps with an example. 

Friendly names seem adequately friendly to me already. Perhaps they should greet me by name...