mike_mccue
Brandon,
This is not your finest moment.
When you tell a customer that has sent the Corporation you work for $2580 that he is nit picky... well it's just not an ideal situation.
Mike, I have to apologize if it came off that way. I meant to make the careful (albeit slippery perhaps) distinction between "acting in a nit-picky way" and "
being a nit-picky person, or a nitpicker - if you will. I sincerely meant the former. In my mind it is less than offensive, but either way, please understand that your support over the years is indeed held in high regard and I meant in no way to insult the character of your "whole person". I know I get sometimes what many could consider overly nit-picky (or "particular" if you like) at times and about certain things, but at my core I'd like to think I'm a relatively adaptable if not even happy-go-lucky person.
I know you have a hard job... keep up the good work... I admire your professional work ethic... and appreciate that you want to share your thoughts.
I really do appreciate that.
The use of negative space in 2d design is VERY effective when the role of the design is to make 1, 2 or very few points in a communications endeavor. That has been proven in 3000 years of 2D design. The Egyptians and Assyrians figured it out.
The fact is that SONAR's GUI is not a simple display of a few prominent ideas.
The ads that Cakewalk is running in the Magazines are, and they are nice. They highlight the Cakewalk and SONAR logo and bring the brand to top of mind... that design and it's use of negative space is contextual to its role as an advertisement.
SONAR's gui is nothing like an advertisement or a page from a coffee table book.
SONAR's GUI is a control surface.
I understand the distinction you are making but I would argue that even with those distinctions, certain aesthetic principles are still applicable. SONAR is interactively presenting information. And the fact is that not everyone wants to be confronted with every option all the time. I understand you are a person who feels very comfortable with a lot of stuff around them...the more switches and dials and meters and lights the better.
I'm probably even more like that than a lot of poeple. But some people, especially creative people, respond very negatively to that. And we hear from those poeple too. They are, perhaps subsequently, also less likely the kinds to come on a forum and debate UI design point by point.
Imagine that you have a 64 channel SSL console and overnight someone takes off several of the knobs? Is that a good idea or is that foolish?
I guess it depends. Is it the same version or has someone brought me a new, redesigned 64-channel SSL? If they chose to redesign and move - or remove - some things I would keep an open mind probably.
This brings me to the term "foolish". Brandon, I prefer positive reinforcement, and I take every opportunity to provide some when it is applicable.
I know you do Mike - and it doesn't go unnoticed.
In this situation, where Cakewalk has reduced the immediate functionality of the track view I think that Cakewalk itself should have exercised the ability to self correct the choices before it ever became an issue for the end user. I feel it was foolish for Cakewalk as a corporation to not self correct the decision to reduce functionality.
OK...like I said if you really think it was foolish (as in acting in a foolish way or something brought on by actual fools) then by all means stick to it. IMO, the functionality in question was not really reduced all that much when applied to most people's workflow habits. But I do understand the exceptions as I've stated.
Previously, if any one wanted to view fewer tracks, and more wasted space, in track view they had every option to expand the tracks to do so. This was 100% optional with the effect of causing track view to visually appear as less "cluttered".
Yeah but options can be oppressive. And when someone is confronted with every option up front and then told, well you can go tweak this and that to make it more inviting and usable for you, they turn off.
In X1, if I want to view as many tracks with as much functionality as I have previously experienced... I simply can not do that.
And we should strive to allow you to do just that within the new framework. I wouldn't deny you that.
I have no option but to tolerate the fact that Cakewalk made a decision to reduce the functionality of the track view.
Perhaps.
I expect myself to be capable of self analysis and make use of logic and experience to make good decisions.
I feel that Cakewalk, a corporation with numerous skilled and talented employees should be able to provide the results of self corrective behavior with as much rigor as I expect of myself.
The decision to reduce functionality in an arbitrary way is not a good decision and this should have been obvious within Cakewalk and it should have been anticipated that an end user might observe that reduced functionality is simply reduced functionality.
I can not make a positive comment about this, and it seems that negative reinforcement is the only available option.
A strong individual or Corporation can take negative reinforcement, either self realized or delivered from afar, and make the very best with it. This has been demonstrated since the origin of our human species and human societies. It is a test of character and strength.
Cakewalk can provide all the previous functionality with the option to hide anything any user wants to hide and Cakewalk can make any feature available, redundantly, within the inspector to any user who prefers that. Those are two decidedly non-foolish ideas.
The fact that Cakewalk choose to present a lack of functionality as a positive improvement and then offer illogical justification, arbitrary opinion, and dare I say, excuse making to support the decision to reduce the functionality in track view suggests to me that Cakewalk is not capable of providing fully realized self evaluation.
The only way to improve functionality is too restore the track count in track view, at any given choice of custom display/hide layout, to its former capability and perhaps enhance the abilities of track view by improving how the previously required amount of space was utilized.
Removing functionality and reducing the number of tracks that can viewed in track view is indeed a loss of functionality and the fact that Cakewalk can not accept that fact requires that someone point out that there is a lack of logic and an inability to self correct decisions that result in loss of functionality.
I admire how very hard you work with your efforts to represent Cakewalk.
I dislike offering negative reinforcement, but it is often times effective when all other options have proven to be ineffective.
I have repeatedly sent in my yearly upgrade fee because that is the only way to remain in the patch road map.
Cakewalk has repeatedly provided me with less than was advertised, and routinely advised me to anticipate a patch. Cakewalk has never made it past 3rd base in the 13 versions that I have purchased.
I honestly do not feel that Cakewalk will improve its track record with me as an end users until it acknowledges it's own inability to consider the facts as they stand and provide solid decision making and critical self evaluation where logic and facts are prioritized over all other considerations.
While I don't necessarily agree with all the characterizations, your feelings are yours and in that sense they are valid and, for what it's worth, most assuredly taken to heart. I certainly won't make any quarrel with that.
If I was working in the Cakewalk organization I would have provided the illustration I posted above at the earliest opportunity and made it absolutely clear to everyone on the committee that it is not nit picking to resist the removal of existing functionality from SONAR. I am a guy the boss often finds both irritating and invaluable... because I push for a universal truth and frequent rigorous self evaluation.
Ah sometimes I wish you could see the whole picture Mike. All I can say is that things often look simpler and more black and white from the outside looking in.
I anticipate that several posters will ask inane questions about track count loss... this has been discussed in great detail in other threads and I am disappointed to realize that some forum members are simply in denial about the facts as they stand.
I hope not. But if so I think it's just that some poeple don't value the need to see a boat-load of tracks at once.
At any given level of functionality, the number of tracks that may be viewed simultaneously in previous versions of track view has been reduced in the X1 version of SONAR.
To a degree of course, this is true.
Brandon, Good luck with the next few years of SONAR recuperation... I hope you will allow me to continue the journey with you. You are a great asset to Cakewalk and I am sure the corporation is aware that you are very good at what you do.
Thanks Mike - i appreciate that. And please stay aboard as long as you like. Hopefully we're going in the general direction you'd like to journey.
all the very best,
mike