Re: Editing scenario

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's tough to learn a new way when we have been used to it another way for so long.

The way I approach it is that it might be a better way, and perhaps the traditional way hasn't been the most efficient, just the most ubiquitous and accepted.

Jury is still out for me, and there's more work to be done by Apple. "

Agree old habits can be tough to shed, especially when they've been ingrained over many years. But that doesn't necessarily make learning something new more difficult.

In the Apple universe, a well-designed product should be simple to to learn, even if it's completely different than everything that came before it. Think of the iPhone, for example. Or the iPad. So simple, a toddler can pick it up.

Or a cat.




For me, all the roadblocks I hit in FCPX feel like places where the designers weren't paying attention. Either thru over-simplification, or by making narrow assumptions. Jim's tracked timeline workaround is a wonderfully creative solution to a problem that a good design wouldn't have created in the first place.

[Jeremy Garchow] "You were involved in an earlier discussion about grouping as it pertains to Pr and Vegas. X is all about grouping, yowzas. And it's all visually grouped and there's several ways to group elements. Does it look like Adobe/Sony's method? Nope. Do you have to learn to control them? Yes, absolutely."

Grouping is a great thing. Always one of my biggest complaints about FCP Legacy was its lack of real groups and the stupid way it handled re-linking multiple clip selections.

I like how tagging with keywords work in X. It's awesome and aI hope Adobe is taking notes. Compound clips I'm not so impressed by. It's really just a new, fancy name for nests, except for some reason they're much less efficient. I'm amazed that almost a year later, the bloat issue is still completely unaddressed. I would think this should be Apple's highest engineering priority. You shouldn't have to tiptoe around using them.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do favorites look like persistent in and out points? Not in the familiar sense, but the very ideas are the same despite the different methodologies of use. "

I figured out why this issue seems to be so polarizing but I never got around to answering in the other thread. I'm gonna get a bit design geeky on you so please humor me:

You're absolutely right when you talk about favorites having the same ideas and functionality as persistent in/out points.

The problem lies in the disconnect between functionality and intentionality.

There's a huge difference in intent between specifying "favorite" (i.e. saying this is something I "like" or want to keep) and marking a cut point for just right now.

This disconnect between functionality and intentionality is why so many people are clamoring for persistent in/out marks. It's not that you can't achieve the same functionality, you certainly can. What people are asking for are tools that match their more specific intentionality. And it just so happens that this intentionality is one of the core actions in the editing process itself.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Jury is still out for me, and there's more work to be done by Apple. "

Agreed. The good news is that now that they have some serious competition from both sides - Adobe from the bottom up and Autodesk from the top down - they're gonna have to up their game. Should be good for everyone.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl