jpetersen
DAWs consist of myriad features packed under menus scattered around the GUI and a manual describing each feature.
 
Useless.
 
We need "How do I...?" guides. Because users want to achieve specific goals.
 
For newbies:
 
How do I connect my interface?
How do I record my voice and / or guitar / piano?
How do I rap with loops?
How do I construct a song with audio clips?
My recording is done. How do I make a CD/MP3/etc.
 
Each must be detailed, not timidly superficial, to get users up-to-speed in understanding SONAR's features. Introduce concepts like Musical Time, Snap To/By etc.
 
Then there's How do I...? for the next level.  
 
How do I rearrange my song?
How do I add drums/bass/strings?
How can I make my song sound more like a professional recording?
How do I set the tempo to my guitar strumming (scook has a great tip which I keep forgetting)
How do I sync my live recording to a click (I keep forgetting this, too)
- you can use audiosnap
- you can use melodyne
 
Then there's the experienced user's How do I...?
 
Craig's tips are good examples (with descriptive titles rather than clever ones, if I may be so bold) and all the information on any number of videos and many often-lost forum postings.

I was thinking the same way.  A Sonar for Dummies book along with a series of Sonar for dummies videos would be a tremendous.  (For the record I hate the name dummies, they should be call for the inexperienced, but I called them dummies books as a reference to that series.)  These would be for a beginner Sonar user.
 
The biggest problem, IMHO, is that some consumers buy a DAW thinking they can just press record and things will work.  We all know that ain't true!  Also buying a DAW and thinking that it will make you a musician will not work anymore that buying a graphic problem and thinking it will make you an artist.  You need the basics to use either program.

A background using multi-track tape and a traditional console helps a lot.  I see people struggling with concepts like send/return, buses, EQ bands, pan pots, compression, volume automation, and other things that were day-to-day basics in a commercial analog studio.
 
The question is how long we should keep up that metaphor. There is still a picture of a floppy disk for saving in most software, even though half the people using the software have never touched one.
 
I am happy with the current metaphor, but someday everyone like me will be gone (although my fame will live on).

I think there are potential improvements all over the place.  SONAR is a great product already.  The improvements are relatively small things in the big picture, but when one is engaged in an artistic process, the nagging little things can really disrupt the artistic process.
 
I would look closely at StudioOne.   In general I think Sonar is a more powerful product and I believe I can achieve better results on Sonar.  But there are aspects of StudioOne that really do make me happy.  The mastering mode is a pretty big deal, I think.  It seems that StudioOne is more forgiving about doing the intuitive thing when one drags clips around or one tries to set up effects on multiple tracks simultaneously.  I think some of the same things are possible in SONAR, but somehow StudioOne seems easier.  I can't give an exact example, I am afraid.  And that's the point.  Most of the potential improvements are in things that are not in your main line of consciousness.
 
I absolutely love how Izotope Neutron can analyze a clip and suggest some sensible effects settings based on that actual material.  That is far more advanced than the simple presets.  I think there is a lot of room for this kind of thing to capture the expert knowledge of the best engineers out there to at least put us on the right track.
 
And I am all for making the entire platform highly touch- and pen-responsive.

I would say just one thing: consistency, consistency, consistency.  Yes, I repeated it, because I think it's important, but also because I think there are 3 string to it (at least)...  So wat do I mean by "consistency"?
 
- Consistency of user experience - ie. use the platform's standards (eg. ctrl-C=copy) and don't re-invent the UI/UX wheel.  SONAR does a pretty good job of this; other DAWs don't (in my experience, some of which is old, to be fair).
 
- Internal consistency - use the same look and feel, terminology and menu structures across your application.  SONAR doesn't do brilliantly on this (in some cases, this is understandable as plug-ins, say, have been added or bought in at different times from different vendors, and plug-ins are probably less critical since there are always third party plug-ins that people will buy which will look and behave differently from packages ones), primarily due to "legacy" screens and menus, but not entirely - eg. the Ripple Editing options should behave like the meter selection options as they are both selectors, but they don't
 
- Industry consistency - use the same terminology and processes that already exist when adding a feature.  Reaper is the worst at this (have you seen its naming conventions?!?!), but SONAR could be better - eg. when adding side-chaining functionality, most (all?) other DAWs are driven from the side-chaining plug-in (ie. open the plug-in and select the sc input from there); SONAR does the reverse (which I actually think is a more sensible approach, but it's not the industry standard way of doing this, which increases user confusion).

KPerry
...when adding side-chaining functionality, most (all?) other DAWs are driven from the side-chaining plug-in (ie. open the plug-in and select the sc input from there); SONAR does the reverse (which I actually think is a more sensible approach, but it's not the industry standard way of doing this, which increases user confusion).

 
It would be even better if Sonar did it both ways, allowing the user to choose.

I have always thought that Sonar was a very easy DAW to learn. Now its become highly complicated with all the new features since Platinum  first came out. However the basic stuff is still simple at least to me. One thing I'm not sure of is this question. At what point is a professional DAW going to assume a certain amount of knowledge of the user? To a certain extant I would find it annoying to be led by the hand on doing basic things.
 
There are simpler DAWs out there some from CW. Isn't Platinum aimed at those that have a desire to know more or at least have some basic DAW experience? I know that we get brand new users here on a regular basis. People that are starting from scratch. For them its a long road to proficient DAW usage. But those that have some years behind them may find any roadblock to "just getting on with it" tiresome.
 
I really don't know what the right answer is. I do think some work has to be done by the end user in order to know what to do and when to do it.  One area that may be of help to all users is a way to configure ones computer to work best with DAW software. A configuration wizard perhaps?      

John
I have always thought that Sonar was a very easy DAW to learn. Now its become highly complicated with all the new features since Platinum  first came out. However the basic stuff is still simple at least to me. One thing I'm not sure of is this question. At what point is a professional DAW going to assume a certain amount of knowledge of the user? To a certain extant I would find it annoying to be led by the hand on doing basic things.
 
There are simpler DAWs out there some from CW. Isn't Platinum aimed at those that have a desire to know more or at least have some basic DAW experience? I know that we get brand new users here on a regular basis. People that are starting from scratch. For them its a long road to proficient DAW usage. But those that have some years behind them may find any roadblock to "just getting on with it" tiresome.
 
I really don't know what the right answer is. I do think some work has to be done by the end user in order to know what to do and when to do it.  One area that may be of help to all users is a way to configure ones computer to work best with DAW software. A configuration wizard perhaps?      

I pretty much agree with all of this.
Except for the marketing and sales aspect I don't see why SONAR or any DAW that aspires to be "professional" should be dumbed down. OK, yes, I'm an old timer and got my start in an analogue 16 track studio. Back then you didn't get anywhere near the board until you'd spent a period of time learning about things like signal flow, which plug goes into which socket (the interface), how to isolate an instrument to prevent bleed, and where the coffee pot was :) Also, you hauled around a lot of gear!
I actually started my digital recording with Cakewalk Guitar Tracks, which was a basic version of SONAR. It was relatively easy for me because, as mentioned in a previous post, it was set up like the old studio desks I was used to. It had a rudimentary track view but I never used it. There was no interface involved, you plugged your guitar and mic into your computers' mic jack with an adapter. It also had very basic midi but I never used that either. I used GT for a couple of years before I got into SONAR 3, and the transition was fairly easy.
I understand the new user's wishes to jump right in with a full featured DAW, but honestly, to expect to be able to do that without some severe growing pains is completely unrealistic. I mean (and I realize the absurdity of this analogy) that's like saying "why can't they make it easier to be a brain surgeon?"  I don't want any part of that! :)
 

rscain
Except for the marketing and sales aspect I don't see why SONAR or any DAW that aspires to be "professional" should be dumbed down.

I don't think anybody is in favor of anything being "dumbed down" if that means limiting capabilities for simplicity's sake.  But there are many aspects of SONAR that just aren't very intuitive or that require some arcane secret handshake that only the old-timers all know about.  The suggestion is that, while Cakewalk has done a marvelous job upgrading and modernizing a very mature code base to give it leading edge function and reliability, the "intuitiveness factor" is not so strong and the "clutter factor" is really burdensome.  These should be targets of emphasis going forward.
 
And if this means that some "legacy users" will have to change a little bit to accommodate an easier, more obvious way of getting the job done, I don't think that is too much to ask.  I am absolutely dead set against an exponentially expanding set of options just so that legacy users are never asked to adjust a little as the product evolves.  Clutter is the enemy.

John
I have always thought that Sonar was a very easy DAW to learn. Now its become highly complicated with all the new features since Platinum  first came out. However the basic stuff is still simple at least to me. One thing I'm not sure of is this question. At what point is a professional DAW going to assume a certain amount of knowledge of the user? To a certain extant I would find it annoying to be led by the hand on doing basic things.
 
There are simpler DAWs out there some from CW. Isn't Platinum aimed at those that have a desire to know more or at least have some basic DAW experience? I know that we get brand new users here on a regular basis. People that are starting from scratch. For them its a long road to proficient DAW usage. But those that have some years behind them may find any roadblock to "just getting on with it" tiresome.
 
I really don't know what the right answer is. I do think some work has to be done by the end user in order to know what to do and when to do it.  One area that may be of help to all users is a way to configure ones computer to work best with DAW software. A configuration wizard perhaps?      

The title of this thread seems to be getting a bit lost 3 pages deep in the comments ...
 
"What Would Make DAWs (Not Just SONAR) Easier to Use?"

abacab

John
I have always thought that Sonar was a very easy DAW to learn. Now its become highly complicated with all the new features since Platinum  first came out. However the basic stuff is still simple at least to me. One thing I'm not sure of is this question. At what point is a professional DAW going to assume a certain amount of knowledge of the user? To a certain extant I would find it annoying to be led by the hand on doing basic things.
 
There are simpler DAWs out there some from CW. Isn't Platinum aimed at those that have a desire to know more or at least have some basic DAW experience? I know that we get brand new users here on a regular basis. People that are starting from scratch. For them its a long road to proficient DAW usage. But those that have some years behind them may find any roadblock to "just getting on with it" tiresome.
 
I really don't know what the right answer is. I do think some work has to be done by the end user in order to know what to do and when to do it.  One area that may be of help to all users is a way to configure ones computer to work best with DAW software. A configuration wizard perhaps?      

The title of this thread seems to be getting a bit lost 3 pages deep in the comments ...
 
"What Would Make DAWs (Not Just SONAR) Easier to Use?"

I was trying to answer that question. I don't think it can be done in a way that would be useful to all. How much ease is enough? We get users that have no idea what a wav file is much less MIDI. If its not an MP3 they're lost.