At 09:19 AM 1/6/06 -0800, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >However, the problem with doing a UI >overhaul is that certain people are already used to the "musically >illogical" placement of features.. we noticed the problem when "Show >Active Layer Only" changed menus from from View to Options. > >If features were totally rearranged, there would be no end of support >requests from people who just use a few features, and know where they >are, but don't know the rest of the program that well. Even if these >changes made all the sense in the world, they could and would be >terribly confusing to users of earlier versions. > >I'm not saying that there should be no search for a way to make all >those menus and dialogs more independently discoverable, but that any >such venture should be undertaken with a great deal of thought and >consideration for its ramifications.
I agree with you completely, especially on longstanding features. But the dialogs themselves could change in such a way that they preserve all the salient (and familiar) features, while adding functionality *and* being available from multiple entry points. The change to "Show Active Layers Only" was not handled well (though I'm not sure how it could have been handled, save for keeping a copy in both menus), but the changes within the Expression dialog were done very well (even while the Expression entry list remains fairly weak). We get used to all sorts of illogical placements. But when those placements don't enhance effective present *and* future features, it may well be time to re-examine them. =end of major point, beginng of outward thought links== For me, this isn't about one checkbox that I, like David, saw but never remarked. It's about a topsy-like growth of Finale -- one that now includes audio features that are themselves full of irrational behavior (skipping every 8 channels, for example, or disallowing integration with other soundfont/sampler schemes). It's about a Finale that doesn't clean up after itself, and that is a symptom of its problems. It's about many specific examples -- the appearance of a plugins menu that, instead of being reserved for third-party creations, came with a passel of disorganized Finale-native actions that should have been placed in other existing or new menus from the start. It's about an unawareness of or unwillingness to face formidable ease-of-use barriers because they seem so familiar to experienced customers, and an unawareness of or unwillingness to modernize an interface in a way that takes advantage of 15 years (over tech 8 generations) of experience in design effectiveness. Nothing in what I say disparages the achievement of the Finale team over the years in pushing the barriers of a notation program, and giving us tools that even the most advanced music can be rendered with. It's about a do-it-now-fix-it-later attitude. I've never met David Fenton, but I do know some of his music and his performances. We seem to be almost exact opposites in our reasoning on why something is a problem, but often we see the same problems and even agree on their magnitude. This was one of them, because both of us are long-time Finale users. We both stared at that check box for years without registering its meaning, and it was only a few weeks ago that this topic came up and I discovered what I had been overlooking. So I think, I'm not a guy who overlooks things so easily. I'm pretty good at figuring out behaviors without constantly using a reference book (save for maybe the key designer thingummy). Why had I missed that? Okay, so I did. And then David missed it and ping! Let's have a look. I must admit David's 'Stockholm Syndrome' comment had me sputtering with laughter. It was a wonderful slap upside the head kind of remark, and I'm sorry Eric took offense. My wife acuses me of the same thing when I simply accept the irrational behaviors, for example, of our home network or MSWord's bogus bulleting methods. And it's true. I'm used to the network priesthood, and think of MS-anything as a kind of City Hall that won't listen. She sees my acceptance as defending the indefensible, a moral weakness. In any case, I think this has been a good discussion. Every day I question my own creative behavior when composing, and turning it outward on Finale's very questionable behaviors feels kinda good. :) Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
