Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]


1) You wouldn't cover every square inch of your wall space or floor space in your home with objects would you?

I don't walk on my computer screens.

Every inch of the counter tops and tables packed with objects ready to be used at a mere whim? If you did it would probably look a lot like those hoarder's homes you see on TV.

This is a good point but it seems the balance has moved too much towards Spartan for some of us.

SONAR has been widely criticized over the years for putting too many controls and buttons and text in a given space contributing to a somewhat overwhelming and claustrophobic feel at times.

While this is absolutely true, I think a very large part of that could have been dealt with by changing the default look without actually removing anything from the tracks. On the other hand, the icon bars at the top of the Sonar window certainly needed work and I really think they were the biggest cause for the clutter complaints. (And let's be honest, those icons would never win any artistic prizes).

I think the Control Bar concept is an improvement. Augmenting it with two or three modes to allow it to be more compact and also enhancing the actual modules with some of the suggestions I have made would make it amazing.

The Tracks headers though still need some work IMO. One thing I would certainly do is make the FX bin resizeable.

2) The stylized icons for expand collapse are simply that - stylized - and they suggest the behavior just fine. I think this is pretty nit-picky and is an "argument" leaning toward total utilitarianism.

No Brandon. It might seem like it is nit-picking but it really isn't. This change is bad. It goes counter to all windows GUIs which does not make it a good idea. It isn't so much the actual icons but the fact that one button is removed! THAT makes it unintuitive.

I asked if people had accidentally hit the layers icon by accident for good reason. That is where people expect to click when they want to minimise/restore a track. If a GUI element does not do what one expects it to do, it is by definition badly designed. Every time someone accidentally clicks on the layers icon, their creative flow is broken while they go "Huh? What? Oh... yeah... Duh". This really is a bad thing. And frankly any software feature that makes it's user feel like an idiot for even just a millisecond should be fixed immediately.

This is a very good example of fixing something that is not broken and coming up with something that is worse than the original.

3) The abbreviated text in X1: Now here's something I agree with. To me the text could be scaled down in size and hopefully the garbled names could return to something more intelligible.

Agreed although I am not sure that there is much room to scale the text. If for instance you look at the vertical bar in the number 1, it is only two pixels wide. Not much room to manoeuvre. So it seems the only real solution is to make those widgets bugger again.

On a different note, I find that having the Track I/O looking essentially like the Edit Filter makes it less obvious at a glance what is what. (Especially with all the dynamic placement). It is a tiny thing but it slows things down just a little bit.

From memory, I really liked the way the Sends look in X1. It is clear what they are (text info aside) and they have the level and pans built in. Nice and clear. I think it would be very intuitive to have the Track I/O work in a similar way. The Input would have the Gain Fader and the Output would have the Volume and Pan Faders.

I'll get a friend to mail me some screen-shots and try and make a mock-up with my limited graphic skills.

4) The fact that the FX bin goes away too soon when reducing the track control area horizontally: I also agree with this and it's no doubt a bit frustrating. It should allow you to collapse more of that empty/wasted space before it disappears. I can't see any reason for it to be the way it is and it's got my vote as something to tweak/fix. But it is just a tweak and I don't think it could be characterized as something that contributes to an entire UI design failure (I'd say the same for the font tweaks as well...)

My main issue when I used X1 was that the bin was too narrow. A resizeable bin would be nice. Or at least it should grow more before it stops growing when you drag out the track header.

5) The interleave and phase buttons: I'd say we should give these back as an option, on the track controls if people really really want them.

Great. If people don't like them, that's what the Track Control Manager is for isn't it?

Having said that I find it just a bit odd that one would really miss these buttons all that much. You could look at the console if you needed to see a lot of them at one time.

Brandon, I haven't opened the Console View in Sonar for over a decade (For actual work that is. I have looked at it from time to time out of curiosity). I find this suggestion reveals that those widgets really need to be returned. Anything that forces one to open a view that one never uses can not be an improvement.  DAW 2.0 remember, we don't need no stinking Console View in 2011!

The problem is that the more controls you make available in that area, the more track control configurations you have to account for visually and it makes keeping clutter under control and a tidy look that much more difficult to achieve.

Oh come on. It is just another couple of lines in the Track Control Manager. Now it is you that is resorting to hyperbole!

One final point I'll make that is personal and subjective: Regardless of the arguable problems with the picture on the right, I personally find it quite a bit more attractive to look at.

I tend to agree. The new design certainly has it's good points! It just needs some tweaking.

Now... let's see what we can do with GIMP...

UnderTow

UnderTow

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

Now perhaps "foolish" is the most accurate way to describe your feelings on the subject and if so, then of course I respect your decision to use that particular verbiage.

Ouch!

Seriously Brandon, Mike used the word Foolish when he responded to John for the Xteenth time. When people like John keep on defending things that need no defending (we are just sharing opinions) and twist what people write (saying that people are somehow criticising the Inspector when nothing was said about the Inspector) trivialising people's needs and workflows and even ridicule the opinion of anyone that doesn't share his views, it gets very frustrating very fast. In other words, I think that the lack of respect for slightly dissenting views of some members does a hell of a lot more to sour the mood on the forum than people giving positive constructive criticism.

UnderTow

I'm going to stick up for Brandon because I think some of you misunderstood what he said. My interpretation of his sentence is, "If you really feel that it was foolish of us to make that decision, then I respect your right to feel that way." He was certainly not saying that Mike was foolish for feeling that way, although I also initially read it that way and had to read that sentence again.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I may be getting lost as to who was replying to who, so maybe take what I just wrote with a grain of salt.  lol

.

keith

mike_mccue


That is because you keep insisting on clarification on what is perfectly clear or refuting that which can not be refuted.

Most of the time, I am left wondering if you are a actually publicist for General Motors. :-)

Mike, are you saying here that you don't think the Track Inspector should have been improved from previous versions?
 
[sorry, just want to get this thread back on track...]

I think he trying to say that it was trying to say that removing functionality and customization isn't an improvement in his opinion.

neiby



I'm going to stick up for Brandon because I think some of you misunderstood what he said.

No need to stick up for Brandon. My point isn't about Brandon. I only quoted the part I did because.. well ... ouch!

I understand Brandon just wants to keep a good vibe and mood on this forum and I agree with that. I just wanted to point out that I really think Mike's use of the word foolish only came because of the frustration caused for needlessly having to repeat himself because of John's posts.

Anyway, I'm just going to add John to my ignore list. Probably the best approach.

UnderTow

.

As I see this is generating a ton of interest, I will also give the same example without any Sends:



Seriously, doesn't that look uncluttered and neat?

UnderTow

Looks nice, but there's some wasted space next to the Gain widget.

And how would you customize it so the user could hide any of those widgets?

Just sayin'.  


These kind of discussions are why I never volunteer to do GUI design. 

I really think Mike's use of the word foolish only came because of the frustration caused for needlessly having to repeat himself because of John's posts.

Right I am the one that is causing all the posting. When on this thread I have 20 posts including this one you Undertow have 22 and mike has 22.

Simply because you don't like me posting does not give you the right to say anything regarding my postings or how often I post. I don'y try to stifle you. I don't think you should try to stifle me.

Instead try to see my point. Then post your objection to it with logic and reason. Not a gratuitous smearing and mis-characterization of them.

dwcaldwell


Looks nice, but there's some wasted space next to the Gain widget.

I was thinking it could contain the missing widgets. Polarity and Interleave. It might not be the most logical place for them tough... Another option could be a small Input Level Meter! (Then you can see the difference between input and output after the signal has been processed by inserted FX. Could be useful, especially if using hardware inserts).

And how would you customize it so the user could hide any of those widgets?

One obvious answer is to not discard the exiting Volume, Gain and Pan widgets. Call them Compact Volume, Compact Gain, Compact Pan. If anyone wants to use them, go ahead. Then there should be a Compact I/O (just the Input/Output selection above each other). They could even keep the current ones if people prefer those can call them Compact Input and Compact Output. All bases covered.

With the Track Control Manager it should be easy for anyone to add or remove what they want/like.

Just sayin'. 

You are absolutely right, all these kind of things need to be addressed in GUI design.

UnderTow

UnderTow

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]


1) You wouldn't cover every square inch of your wall space or floor space in your home with objects would you?

I don't walk on my computer screens.

Hopefully you don't walk on your walls either, but you still wouldn't cover every square inch of them. Unless of course you were planning a bank heist or something.

Every inch of the counter tops and tables packed with objects ready to be used at a mere whim? If you did it would probably look a lot like those hoarder's homes you see on TV.

This is a good point but it seems the balance has moved too much towards Spartan for some of us.

Fair enough. But this is more subjective area and where we get in to the detail. And we know who lives in the details.

SONAR has been widely criticized over the years for putting too many controls and buttons and text in a given space contributing to a somewhat overwhelming and claustrophobic feel at times.

While this is absolutely true, I think a very large part of that could have been dealt with by changing the default look without actually removing anything from the tracks. On the other hand, the icon bars at the top of the Sonar window certainly needed work and I really think they were the biggest cause for the clutter complaints. (And let's be honest, those icons would never win any artistic prizes).

It's hard to say how much could have been done by just changing look alone. But either way, we wanted to improve how it is to make music in SONAR as well, not just put lipstick on it. Now obviously there are places where that is less than fully successful but the foundation is there and the wide swath - overall window management, drag and drop functionality, component specific menu items,and so on - IMO are major improvement.

I think the Control Bar concept is an improvement. Augmenting it with two or three modes to allow it to be more compact and also enhancing the actual modules with some of the suggestions I have made would make it amazing.

Yup I agree.  The Control Bar can be magnitudes better and a pretty cool thing with some carefull enhancements.

The Tracks headers though still need some work IMO. One thing I would certainly do is make the FX bin resizeable.

Resizable FX bin would be good - won't get any argument from me. Not sure how much work it is to make it act in such a way.

2) The stylized icons for expand collapse are simply that - stylized - and they suggest the behavior just fine. I think this is pretty nit-picky and is an "argument" leaning toward total utilitarianism.

No Brandon. It might seem like it is nit-picking but it really isn't. This change is bad. It goes counter to all windows GUIs which does not make it a good idea. It isn't so much the actual icons but the fact that one button is removed! THAT makes it unintuitive.

But they do work differently than the previous 8.5 system of icons. The control in question (in X1) is basically a toggle that toggles between a track's full size and the minimized state. It's not really a minimize/maximize/restore set of buttons as it was in 8.5 or in the traditional sense. Double-clicking the track is essentially "maximize". I mean I can understand saying that "it's better to follow more accepted standards and that is what poeple are used to so that's how it should be", but there are no doubt exceptions to this conventional wisdom. Some things can be better, especially given the context of the particular environment they exist in, amongst all the other factors that environment presents. Personally I've found myself used to it after a brief period and didn't really think about it much past that. But, mind you,  I get distracted by guitars and keyboard sounds very easily.

I asked if people had accidentally hit the layers icon by accident for good reason. That is where people expect to click when they want to minimize/restore a track. If a GUI element does not do what one expects it to do, it is by definition badly designed. Every time someone accidentally clicks on the layers icon, their creative flow is broken while they go "Huh? What? Oh... yeah... Duh". This really is a bad thing. And frankly any software feature that makes it's user feel like an idiot for even just a millisecond should be fixed immediately.

In general, sure, but as I stated above, I don't know if you can be that black and white about what's inherently badly designed. It's more subjective than that and sometimes there are ways in which a user can be trained to expect things differently over time. Don't get me wrong, things should always be as intuitive as possible, but asking a user to adjust to what, over time, can be better in the context of their environment is a perfectly feasible reality to me. Whether or not this is one of those exceptions or not I guess is up for debate. Either way, to me...it's not that big of a deal.

This is a very good example of fixing something that is not broken and coming up with something that is worse than the original.

Perhaps, but I think the point is debatable as to whether or not it is worse. I don't think it is demonstrably worse, just different. You might argue that the difference inherently makes it worse. I would not agree.

3) The abbreviated text in X1: Now here's something I agree with. To me the text could be scaled down in size and hopefully the garbled names could return to something more intelligible.

Agreed although I am not sure that there is much room to scale the text. If for instance you look at the vertical bar in the number 1, it is only two pixels wide. Not much room to manoeuvre. So it seems the only real solution is to make those widgets bugger again.

I'd say attempt to make the text smaller and/or thinner.

On a different note, I find that having the Track I/O looking essentially like the Edit Filter makes it less obvious at a glance what is what. (Especially with all the dynamic placement). It is a tiny thing but it slows things down just a little bit.

Agreed it can be, but I don't think there is a very easy and still dynamic approach to this. Not to say it can't be improved, but there are many factors involved. This is likely why many manufacturers don't let you see all that stuff in the track area while making the track control area dynamically sizable.

From memory, I really liked the way the Sends look in X1. It is clear what they are (text info aside) and they have the level and pans built in. Nice and clear. I think it would be very intuitive to have the Track I/O work in a similar way. The Input would have the Gain Fader and the Output would have the Volume and Pan Faders.

I saw your mock up and I really do like the integration and the logic to this - definitley. The problem becomes with the size of the widgets. They are more difficult to manage as far as what happens when the track control area is changed horizontally or vertically. Every state must be accounted for. And it's more difficult to allow users to choose which widgets they want to see in their different configurations.

I'll get a friend to mail me some screen-shots and try and make a mock-up with my limited graphic skills.

4) The fact that the FX bin goes away too soon when reducing the track control area horizontally: I also agree with this and it's no doubt a bit frustrating. It should allow you to collapse more of that empty/wasted space before it disappears. I can't see any reason for it to be the way it is and it's got my vote as something to tweak/fix. But it is just a tweak and I don't think it could be characterized as something that contributes to an entire UI design failure (I'd say the same for the font tweaks as well...)

My main issue when I used X1 was that the bin was too narrow. A resizeable bin would be nice. Or at least it should grow more before it stops growing when you drag out the track header.

Yup I agree. I like a big FX bin for my big FX.

5) The interleave and phase buttons: I'd say we should give these back as an option, on the track controls if people really really want them.

Great. If people don't like them, that's what the Track Control Manager is for isn't it?

True. And this manager dictates somewhat how the modular controls appear in the track control area.

Having said that I find it just a bit odd that one would really miss these buttons all that much. You could look at the console if you needed to see a lot of them at one time.

Brandon, I haven't opened the Console View in Sonar for over a decade (For actual work that is. I have looked at it from time to time out of curiosity). I find this suggestion reveals that those widgets really need to be returned. Anything that forces one to open a view that one never uses can not be an improvement.  DAW 2.0 remember, we don't need no stinking Console View in 2011!

Ha - ok.

The problem is that the more controls you make available in that area, the more track control configurations you have to account for visually and it makes keeping clutter under control and a tidy look that much more difficult to achieve.

Oh come on. It is just another couple of lines in the Track Control Manager. Now it is you that is resorting to hyperbole!

No I was being entirely serious. you have to determine what happens to those controls when you adjust the tracks size vertically and what happens to that stuff when you adjust the track control area horizontally. It's not just a couple of lines. It all requires a design and code to be written, etc...(I Know I know...but it's true ).

One final point I'll make that is personal and subjective: Regardless of the arguable problems with the picture on the right, I personally find it quite a bit more attractive to look at.

I tend to agree. The new design certainly has it's good points! It just needs some tweaking.

Now... let's see what we can do with GIMP...

UnderTow

UnderTow
 
Brandon, I haven't opened the Console View in Sonar for over a decade (For actual work that is. I have looked at it from time to time out of curiosity). I find this suggestion reveals that those widgets really need to be returned. Anything that forces one to open a view that one never uses can not be an improvement.  DAW 2.0 remember, we don't need no stinking Console View in 2011!
 
 
 

What??? I'm mean: Whaaaat???? Are you serious? I really hope that this is just a joke. I'm referring to the bold quote....
 

I don't think that comparison works Mike.  The paintings are purely aesthetic and serve no functional purpose.

.

Wow this thread is getting.... interesting to say the least.

I have one question: How much interaction to you have with a painting on the wall compared to a "Save" button in a software?