-
Long time editor’s frustration with FCPX
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “it’s possible to directly access many of the interface tool and button icons in PPro and adjust them (as in adjust/remake them in PS).”
I would love to be pointed in the direction of how this is done because that’s pretty amazing/scary if true.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
I also was never a fan of Sequences being called “Projects,” but I’ve never had a problem with the term, “Library” and in fact, think it’s highly appropriate to X’s workflow. “Event” is such a vague term that I think people are unsure how to consider them.
Personally, I think their naming convention should’ve been this:
Library —-> Project —–> Sequence
where project is used in place of event and makes a helluva lot more sense in that context.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
Look. Here’s the deal. Apple saw the writing on the wall and went down this path–FCPX.
FIRST: Did Apple botch the initial launch of FCPX? Yep. Did apple release the first version of FCPX (leap frogging FCP8 / 9) too soon, without fully developing the software? Yep. Did they alienate some “pro” editors? Yeah. Sure.
But, we’re here.
SECOND: Yes, there’s a “Fisher Price” aspect to the software and a healthy patina of “pro-sumerism” in the interface. Why?
Well, Apple realized there are only, what, MAYBE, 20-thousand “professional editors” on this planet? That is to say, MAYBE there are 20 thousand people who make their entire living cutting on NLE’s?
Avid could sell “big iron” software to that small population and pull a profit. And, Apple did the same thing with FCP 1 thru 7–selling to “pros.” Same with Premiere.
BUT… Apple, as I said, saw the writing on the wall. This social media revolution took off. Instead of a few 10 thousand “professionals,” there are MILLIONS of people (mainly young folk) who would like to edit stuff for YouTube and the like. So, Apple made an NLE (admittedly based on iMovie) to cater to this crowd. And they only charge $300, instead of several thousand.
The interface is a bit “fruity,” and it uses terminology that the aforementioned “pros” would never use. But, it just doesn’t matter. It works. And, Apple is laughing all the way to the bank.
I’ve worked in broadcasting for years. Our audience dwindled. Suddenly, I look up and see KIDS getting millions of “hits” on social media and YouTube. And, the NLE of choice is… guess what? FCPX.
There’s this young woman named “Miranda Sings.” (Look her up.) She’s a MILLIONAIRE! She posts simple YouTube videos and young tweens flock to her media. And, advertisers took notice, and began paying Ms. Sings big bucks. (The same bucks that used to be paid to us broadcasters.)
Why did I go off on this Miranda Sings tangent? Well, guess which software she uses? Yep. The “Fisher Price” model.
And… there are many more editors–100’s of thousands–behind her doing the same thing. Now… Are these people “amateurs?” Hmmm… I dunno. When your bank account has seven figures on the bottom line, I’d say that makes you a “professional.”
In short, Apple made an NLE for the masses. And… if you look under the hood, it has some powerful tools for the “old pro’s.”
Me? Well, I billed several hundred thousand dollars last year using FCPX–as a part time gig! I edit in my den! Many of my clients are Fortune 500 companies. They accepted by work as it came off FCPX. (Granted, I didn’t have to share within my work flow.)
(By the way, I trained on Avid back in 1998. And I came proficient on FCP7. And, then… I stumbled upon “X.”)
I’m tired of being an FCPX apologist. I think the interface is elegant. Simple. Intuitive. And it bravely broke away from “analog conventions” that were impressed upon early NLE’s–like “tracks” and “dual viewers.”
Maybe I’m just an “amateur.” I’m comfortable with that title.
-
[tony west] “But who would presume I was a hobbyist? Everybody that knows me knows I’m working on the NHL Playoffs right now. They don’t think I’m at a wedding because they know what I do for a living.
“WOOSH!
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “But of course. You don’t think that’s on purpose? You don’t think by changing the terms, you might have people change their frame of reference? Isn’t it OK to have a look at what the relationship of media to sequence to container may be? If you read the FCPX manual, timeline is listed all over it. If it’s really that confusing, and someone opens the manual, they will figure out rather quickly what a Project might mean.”
I don’t think this particular change was in any way necessary or beneficial to understanding the new model. I mostly agree with Andy:
[Andy Neil] “Personally, I think their naming convention should’ve been this:
Library —-> Project —–> Sequence
where project is used in place of event and makes a helluva lot more sense in that context.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think that Apple has a much bigger hill to climb than Project vs Sequence terminology and if we, as professionals, can’t figure the difference between those two terms, we shouldn’t be here. I would assume that Apple thinks an FCPX user, can figure out what a Project, what an Event, and what a Library can do and how they work. Cameras have all different kinds of terminology for the same thing. Cam Ops get over it and get to work and none of them are all wrong or all right.
Some people might not know what lift and gain means, but they could tell you what shadows and highlights are. Are they wrong, or is it just a different frame of reference?”
I get where you’re coming from, but I think it’s a bigger problem for FCPX than you realize. It’s not about whether we as professionals can wrap our heads around Apple’s name change, it’s the fact that Apple is disregarding well established, decades old industry standards and asking us to deal with a confusing, unnecessary change in the first place.
I don’t think your analogy of lift vs gain really works. Lift and gain are different but related properties.
An imperfect but better analogy for what Apple has done renaming sequences to projects would be if Apple one day decided instead of calling files “files”, they would now be referred to as “folders”. Imagine the confusion!
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at what the definitive source of good Mac OS UI design has to say about the subject.
From Apple’s Mac OS X Human Interface Guidelines: (link)
Consistency
Consistency in the interface allows users to transfer their knowledge and skills from one app to another. Applying the principle of consistency does not mean that your app must look and behave the same as all other apps. Rather, the principle of consistency holds that an app should respect its users and avoid forcing them to learn new ways to do things for no other reason than to be different.
When thinking about how your app handles consistency, consider the principle in the following contexts. Specifically, is your app consistent with:
- OS X standards? For example, does the app use the reserved and recommended keyboard equivalents for their correct purposes? Does it use standard UI elements correctly and integrate well with the Finder, the Dock, and other OS X features that users appreciate? For more information about these items, see Keyboard Shortcuts and Integrating with OS X.
- The app itself? Does it use consistent terminology for labels and features? Do icons mean the same thing every time they are used? Are concepts presented in similar ways across all modules? Are similar controls and other UI elements located in similar places in windows and dialogs?
- Earlier versions of the app? Have the terms and meanings remained the same between releases? Are the fundamental concepts essentially unchanged?
- People’s expectations? Does it meet the needs of the user without extraneous features? Does it conform to the user’s mental model? For more information on this concept, see Mental Model.
Changing “sequences” to “projects” completely violates the established mental model of how NLEs work throughout the entire industry.
Apple not only breaks industry standards, it violates its own UI guidelines with this change.
As we’ve seen, it’s completely unnecessary and frankly, indefensible, even if you like how FCPX works.
This is why I call it a colossal blunder. It makes it seem like FCPX developers are off in their own little bubble, either unaware or too self-absorbed to care about common standards for technical language and its meaning.
It’s hard enough to introduce something new. Mistakes like this make gaining industry acceptance even harder.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Berez] “FCPX is like sheathing a RED EPIC in Fisher Price plastic.”
[Dave Stoelk] “SECOND: Yes, there’s a “Fisher Price” aspect to the software and a healthy patina of “pro-sumerism” in the interface. Why?
“I really can’t understand this complaint. There’s nothing Fisher Price about FCPX. It’s uncluttered, but that’s not un-pro. It’s icons are fine. Oh, there’s a key icon. How cheesy. Do you realize that the icon on the Avid for Lift is a stick figure muscle man holding a barbell? How is that more professional?
FCPX is different. A lot different looking than Avid or Premiere, but just as professional.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
David,
Then honestly, you just shouldn’t use X.
Premier is a great version of FCP 8 – with plenty to like.
And honestly, if you’re willing to trade the efficiency and extra productivity for some vague “appearance to others of professionalism” then I doubt X will ever be the tool for you.
For me, getting done with my work significantly faster is ALL I care about. I’d rather put myself to sleep with a good novel than spend any more all nighters just because want someone else to think something about the tools i use to edit.
But to each their own.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Gary Huff] “[tony west] “But who would presume I was a hobbyist? Everybody that knows me knows I’m working on the NHL Playoffs right now. They don’t think I’m at a wedding because they know what I do for a living.
”WOOSH!
“
More like……..cha ching
-
[David Berez] “But the Fischer Price packaging is killing me. Bottom line, after 20 something years of non linear editing interfaces I should not be embarrassed to share my screen with my clients. How the heck do we justify our professional rates when the interface looks like it was designed for 14 year olds?”
I think it’s just an issue you have to come to terms with David. I kind of getting where you coming from. It does not (added after re reading and an edit) feel like you are a the controls of some mighty thing that nobody else can understand or do. It is almost within reach of (in fact is) iMovie users who want to do some simple stuff. It doesn’t make you feel grown up or professional enough. I am no taking the piss here, I felt the same but didn’t know quite how to put it into words.
What can I say. You get used to it. Then don’t notice it. The you look at other NLE interfaces one day and they all look rathe fussy and unnecessarily old school “source record”
I was embarrassed that my ‘pro’ interface looked to the untrained eye like iMovie.
I got over it. You will too.
-
It is so gratifying to still have Aindreas here on tippy toes peeking over the garden fence. You don’t need to peek though Aindreas. Just come on in through the gate – it’s not locked.
You’re still invited!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up