@UnderTow

So - software that is projecting a track as a single line giving you 1600+ tracks on a 1680x1080 monitor is per definition superior to all other DAW software?

Hmm.. interesting... Never tought you could see things like that.
Well - I am never to old to learn...

But... If you don't mind - I just go for X1, just because I like it. It has everything I need, it is working like I want it to, the interface is fitting my style and I don't care about the "number of tracks on screen competition". That's enough for me...

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]


Look I'll be the first to admit that I think the CB is a bit too big (that's only my personal opinion). The good part of this is that it can be instantly hidden most of the time and easily shown when needed. Either way this is something that will no doubt have work done on it as time goes by.

Great. See my multiple Control Bar Modes suggestion above.

But let's not make a direct connection between number of tracks visible at one time as an indicator of how good or bad a UI is.

Why not? Because you don't think it is important? It certainly is an important indicator for anyone that wants to have as much as possible visible in one go. Instead of telling the users what is or isn't an important indicator, maybe Cakewalk should listen to what the users consider important indicators. This is one of them.

 There's a lot more to the equation and for some, these factors are going to far outweigh being able to see less tracks by some percentage.

What does this have to do with anything? You are presenting this as though having the ability to make your tracks really small prevents other stuff. It doesn't. This is a false dichotomy.

Cakewalk just designed a new GUI. Why is the smallest track size so big? Why not give the option for much smaller tracks like other DAWs do? If people want bigger tracks, nothing is stopping them from making them bigger (like John did with his 8.5 screenshot). It can even be the default setting. That is fine.

Seriously Brandon, I don't see how you can argue against having the ability to have smaller tracks. Some people want that. Anyone else can use larger tracks.

UnderTow

Which version of Sonar shows more information in the track view header?


What on earth does "LftASHDRA" even mean...?

UnderTow

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]


Look I'll be the first to admit that I think the CB is a bit too big (that's only my personal opinion). The good part of this is that it can be instantly hidden most of the time and easily shown when needed. Either way this is something that will no doubt have work done on it as time goes by.

Great. See my multiple Control Bar Modes suggestion above.

But let's not make a direct connection between number of tracks visible at one time as an indicator of how good or bad a UI is.

Why not? Because you don't think it is important? It certainly is an important indicator for anyone that wants to have as much as possible visible in one go. Instead of telling the users what is or isn't an important indicator, maybe Cakewalk should listen to what the users consider important indicators. This is one of them.

Well I do think it's important but what I'm saying is that it may not be as important to everyone as you personally feel it is. To be honest I don't have poeple coming up to me left and right and saying they need to see more tracks. It's important to some yes but how important it is and to what extent it should be focused on is arguably all over the map. I was simply saying let's not remove it from the overall equation and make it an singular indicator of how well or how poorly designed the UI is.

 There's a lot more to the equation and for some, these factors are going to far outweigh being able to see less tracks by some percentage.

What does this have to do with anything? You are presenting this as though having the ability to make your tracks really small prevents other stuff. It doesn't. This is a false dichotomy.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm questioning how much design and development focus this particular factor should take. I wasn't saying at all that it prevents anything, just that there are other factors as well as number of visible tracks that make an interface more or less pleasurable to use.

Cakewalk just designed a new GUI. Why is the smallest track size so big? Why not give the option for much smaller tracks like other DAWs do? If people want bigger tracks, nothing is stopping them from making them bigger (like John did with his 8.5 screenshot). It can even be the default setting. That is fine.

Because it takes design, development and testing time. Thi is something I've had to come to terms iwth while working for music technology companies over the years. We've been through this before. It's easy to throw an idea on the table and ask why it wasn't implemented. And you know we appreciate thoughtful good ideas. But as soon as you say "why not give the option" you are adding design, develpment and testing time to the product.

Seriously Brandon, I don't see how you can argue against having the ability to have smaller tracks. Some people want that. Anyone else can use larger tracks.

UnderTow

I never meant to give the impression that I'm arguing against having the ability to have smaller tracks - that would be absurd.  What I was saying is that the current lack of ability doesn't inherently make it a bad UI or outweigh the positive aspects of X1's interface. I was cautioning against putting too much emphasis on his particular aspect.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]
Because it takes design, development and testing time.

It doesn't take dev time to get what you already had. You had already gone 2 years without serious work on Sonar, why not do another paid fix, call it 9 and do a proper X1 in 2011? A 11/11/11 launch? That would have solved 99% of this.

UnderTow

John


I can show much the same number of tracks in X1 as I did in Sonar 8.5.3.

Both pictures were snapped on a 22" LCD display running at 1680x1080.

< Silly pictures deleted to keep the thread clean>

Oh come on John that is silly.  How can you compare these two pictures? In the 8.5 picture you have every toolbar and it's grandma open while in X1 you have everything closed. At least open the Control Bar for a fair comparison. If that wasn't enough, you don't even fully minimise the tracks in the 8.5 view! (And you have the Track Inspector open to make things look even more cluttered).

Here are some real hard facts: Sonar 8.5 can show 42 tracks on 1080 vertical resolution. That is 6 more than X1 or a 14.3% screen real estate loss when upgrading to X1 and that is with the Control Bar closed! With CB open you get a 21.4% loss of screen real estate. More than a fifth.

X1 wastes space needlessly. Fact, not opinion.

Still, Cubase clearly wins with the ability to show 65 tracks on the same screen.

UnderTow

For the record I do not have every tool bar open in the 8.5.3 picture. But closing them or more accurately removing them would cut down on my ability to do the things I wish to do. Where X1 does not need those tool bars and still those things can be done. In Sonar 8.5.3 many things are not removable as well where in X1 they are. The way I have those examples are the way I can effectively work with the to versions. Its my "work flow" LOL

Look I'll be the first to admit that I think the CB is a bit too big (that's only my personal opinion). The good part of this is that it can be instantly hidden most of the time and easily shown when needed. Either way this is something that will no doubt have work done on it as time goes by.

One of the neat things in X1 is the support of a CS. You don't need the CB open at all with one if it is a Mackie Control or a V-700. That is one that will display time and position as well as tracks plus status.

 

.

.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

Why not? Because you don't think it is important? It certainly is an important indicator for anyone that wants to have as much as possible visible in one go. Instead of telling the users what is or isn't an important indicator, maybe Cakewalk should listen to what the users consider important indicators. This is one of them.

Well I do think it's important but what I'm saying is that it may not be as important to everyone as you personally feel it is.

Of course. Note that you responded to a post I made in response to John. John posted misleading pictures that give the wrong impression. That just irks me. Hence my response. Also note that this is a thread about GUI clutter. Not other aspects of UI design.

I was simply saying let's not remove it from the overall equation and make it an singular indicator of how well or how poorly designed the UI is.

Again, I was responding to a really silly post. That said, It IS important. Especially as the GUI just got redesigned.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm questioning how much design and development focus this particular factor should take.

Oh come on Brandon. Making all the buttons and track heights etc smaller to start with does NOT use any more development resources. They are just pictures in the end. Nothing more.

Because it takes design, development and testing time.

No it doesn't. There is no way you are going to make me believe that shaving of a few pixels off everything has any bearing on how long it takes to design a GUI. On the other hand, getting things right from the start does save design, development and testing time along the line.

Thi is something I've had to come to terms iwth while working for music technology companies over the years. We've been through this before. It's easy to throw an idea on the table and ask why it wasn't implemented. And you know we appreciate thoughtful good ideas. But as soon as you say "why not give the option" you are adding design, develpment and testing time to the product.

Not in this case. The option is already there. Tracks can be resized. I just think they should start smaller.

Now on the other hand if I suggested there was the ability to resize tracks to much smaller heights but to do this the track view would have to switch below a certain size to a view that removes all the widgets and track names... then you would have a point.

(Pro Tools does that).

I never meant to give the impression that I'm arguing against having the ability to have smaller tracks - that would be absurd.  What I was saying is that the current lack of ability doesn't inherently make it a bad UI or outweigh the positive aspects of X1's interface. I was cautioning against putting too much emphasis on his particular aspect.

It is important you know.

UnderTow