Re: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer

[Simon Ubsdell] "What other piece of software for general use requires the end-user to understand how and why the code has been written the way it has in order to be able to use it properly? I think the answer is "none" and I think you'd have to agree. "

It's not that knowing changes the utility of the program, it's that it changes the whining into understanding. The posts here are tantamount to saying, "why can't the car eat hay since my horse does?" One might still opt for the horse and there may be very sound reasons currently. It's the lack of understanding that's resulted in a lot of "unproductive" posts.

I'd like to see more real critique of faults as well as advantages. Some that's in this forum but there's an overwhelming of "car doesn't eat hay" kind of posts.

Expectations become realistic and decision making becomes more informed.

For example, the whole database/metadata methodology needs to be understood, in my opinion, so people grasp why Apple went with that. It might help people understand the Event, Project, Storyline format. Why what people call a "sequence" (Storylline) behaves the way it does. Certainly that doesn't mean people will be happy with and certainly people may move to other NLEs . . . but it may stop the outcry that Apple should "fix or bring back" something that can't really happen. The car does not eat hay nor would it make sense for auto-manufacturer to build in or even simulate that feature.