• SONAR
  • X1 User interface looks cluttered! (p.19)
2011/01/28 11:36:03
The Maillard Reaction
.
2011/01/28 11:49:12
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.
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


2011/01/28 11:59:45
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


2011/01/28 12:27:38
neiby
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
2011/01/28 12:43:47
John
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 please don't characterize what I write. Your assertions are not true. If you read what I wrote fairly there is no trivialization or defending anything. I am simply looking at it from a very different perspective. One you may not agree with my view but there is no need to denigrate it with false assertions. Also the "xteenth" time is not a fair attribution either. Mike is the one that is writing for the "xteenth" time in nearly all threads.  Not to mention you as well. Regurgitating the same lines over and over again.
2011/01/28 12:53:23
The Maillard Reaction
.
2011/01/28 12:57:05
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...]

2011/01/28 13:24:41
Guest
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.
2011/01/28 13:51:21
keith
10Ten


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.

I know. I was joking.
2011/01/28 14:00:03
UnderTow
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
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account