why would anyone want to use FCPX (SERIOUS discussion – no bashing)

[Robin S. kurz]

[Oliver Peters] “to customize the UI in ways that improve their efficiency.”

So, “cuz I wanna”. Because, again, the question was how? What specifically would they do differently for the actual sake of improved efficiency, above and beyond the way it is now. I’m quite aware that others are asking for it in general, yes.

[Oliver Peters] “You are probably in the minority there. “

I wouldn’t be too sure.

I suspect the vast majority merely demand that “flexibility” (which it is the opposite of in my eyes, at least in THAT incarnation) in the “because I’m used to having that way!” sense, without actually, objectively considering how and why another approach could actually be i.e. IS better. Unable to actually point to specifics (apparently) as to how or why it’s so horribly constrictive to their workflow, which I think is a baseless meme. IOW pretty much in the exact same way that people react to the magnetic timeline for the first time. Some come around, others don’t and go back to the comfortable world of same ol’ same ol’. Horses for courses.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Bill Davis] “one of their longtime editors had positioned their second monitor with the Event Browser on the right side of their Main Monitor”

I actually do this all the time when viewing/organizing. Makes for MUCH less scrolling. I have the viewer there the rest of the time. Now if only I could do the same with the timeline.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Simon Ubsdell]

As a thought experiment, suppose Apple did introduce more flexible UI layout options.

Would you consider that to be a mistake on their part?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Robin S. kurz]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Would you consider that to be a mistake on their part?”

Since you didn’t quote anybody and the threading here is so hellaciously convoluted, I don’t know exactly who you’re asking.

But if it was me: nope. But only because I know they would come up with something that isn’t anything even remotely like what e.g. Adobe is doing and stay true to the overall groundwork they’ve already laid. It’s not exactly like they decide on how to do things haphazardly or on a whim. There’s a lot of planning, design and logic behind it, whether others can (or want to) see and appreciate it or not.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Simon Ubsdell]

Fair enough.

I was getting the impression that you thought that it was impossible to improve on the rigid layouts we’ve had for the last 5+ years.

My mistake, sorry.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Robin S. kurz]

[Simon Ubsdell] “you thought that it was impossible to improve on the rigid layouts”

Aside from them not actually being rigid but already pretty flexible, I only meant that I think it’s pretty obvious that Apple isn’t in the “if everyone else is doing it, it must be right” game and therefore won’t just blindly follow others, yes.

[Simon Ubsdell] “for the last 5+ years.”

As opposed to what Adobe has had for, what, the past twenty+ years? 😀

Either way, I can’t think of any time where Apple made changes of X’s magnitude to anything, software or otherwise, and then just said “Oops” years later only to do an about-face. 🙂

Avid on the other hand strikes me as (maybe) having had actual GUI designers sometime in the late eighties, possibly nineties. Since then the engineers have made all the icons, any and every other interface element and related decisions. 😛

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Robin S. Kurz] “Aside from them not actually being rigid but already pretty flexible”

I’ve read what you’ve said about this here and take on board some of your arguments, but let me give you an example where Apple’s “rigidity” as I’m calling it is distinctly sub-optimal and that’s the Inspector.

The height of the Inspector is at all times constrained by the height of the Timeline and of course there is a fixed minimum height for the Timeline as well.

This means that you can never use the full height of the screen for the Inspector, and for Effects, Generators and Transitions with anything more than the bare minimum of controls this is a clear limitation.

For comparison, we can look at what BMD did with Resolve. Exact same layout, but you can toggle the Inspector to full height as needed.

Apple could have done the same, but they didn’t.

So that’s just one example, but it does suggest that Apple don’t always design things in the best possible way.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Robin S. kurz]

[Simon Ubsdell] “The height of the Inspector is at all times constrained by the height of the Timeline […] but you can toggle the Inspector to full height as needed.”

Yes, I actually mentioned that further up. 😉 That would be one of the tweaks I would love to see that makes a lot of sense.

[Simon Ubsdell] “but it does suggest that Apple don’t always design things in the best possible way.”

I don’t believe there is a “best” for anything. No matter HOW you do it, it’ll always be a give and take in one way or another and you’ll never make everybody happy. I just personally feel that the way it is (incl. the headroom for improvement) is one with the overall least “takes”. Turning to floating and/or randomly swappable windows and tabs most certainly is not a solution imho, quite the opposite. And if you look at ALL of Apple’s apps, there is not one that has floating anything anymore, where they ALL used to have floating everything. Aside from maybe Motion’s HUD. Which I in fact find difficult to work with, since there’s never a good spot for it. It’s a constant on/off… or just plain OFF, as incredibly useful and clever I find it in principle. So they could even dock THAT for all I cared. 😀

So I think it’s pretty delusional to think they’ll suddenly “come to” and go back to floaters etc. anytime soon, if anyone actually believes that or thinks it’s somehow a good idea or could pose an actual improvement. Do you?

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Robin S. Kurz] “So I think it’s pretty delusional to think they’ll suddenly “come to” and go back to floaters etc. anytime soon, if anyone actually believes that or thinks it’s somehow a good idea or could pose an actual improvement. Do you?”

I’m with you on floating windows and agree that the HUD in Motion is more trouble than it’s worth.

However, just to be annoying I’m going to point out that there are indeed floating windows in FCP X, namely Record Voice-Over and Background Tasks.

😉

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Robin S. kurz]

[Simon Ubsdell] “namely Record Voice-Over and Background Tasks.”

Damn. You got me there.

Okay… but you know what I mean. d-; Those of course being probably the only functions/areas that you’ll not want open beyond a glance or single use, so embedding them into the interface like everything else I’d say would be counterproductive.

And sure, if you wanted to be pedantic, then there are in fact several plugins that invoke a floating window (which I actually don’t think is always great either) as well. So there’s that.

But there you go! So Apple does know when to let go of basic GUI principles and convictions! ;-D

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!