Re: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

Vaughan, 

I'm sorry Martyn unsubscribed to -quality, but that was exactly why  I 
tried to get this moved off to the Forum. A long discussion is not at all
unexpected on the Forum, or in Forum PMs. I hope the length of this
thread turns out to be exceptional and Martyn can be persuaded back

For sure, Martyn's previous and your vote will be counted. I was 
already assuming that. 

The level to pitch the docs and interface at is a common difference 
of perspective between myself and others. As stated I'm aware of 
getting too influenced by the needs of the least savvy users. Yes, they 
are frustrated at their own lack of ability, but they are also most in 
need of help. The savvy could figure what the "Thing" does with any 
reasonable name, but yes, they also expect a reasonable lack of
clutter and hand-holding.  

Given Audacity is bundled with mass-market cheap hardware, our user 
balance has conspicuously skewed to the less savvy. We can't afford to 
ignore that without consideration, because otherwise it ends up giving
us bad press that Audacity is too hard to understand (and bad press if
we handle these users unprofessionally). 

If we had a simpler version of Audacity available with big buttons, no 
export, limited menus etc., this would be much less of an issue for the 
"main version".   

I'm sorry I had to take a view against "Track Control Panel" and that this
delayed coming to a decision, but just as you would, I have to say how I 
genuinely think. -1 on Track Controls Panel (too clumsy and difficult to 
pluralise). It's a free vote, so I'll live with the expected winner "Track
Control Panel".  





Gale 



| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:54:46 -0800
| Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was:	Visibility	of	sync-lock mini-clock icon in Track Panel
> On 11/15/2010 2:42 AM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> > 
> > This is the final instalment (hurrah/relief) of what to call the "Thing"
> > and call for the final vote. 
> 
> +1 for "Track Controls Panel". Second choice, "Track Control Panel".
> 
> Martyn quit reading this list, largely *because* of the length and
> repetitiveness of this thread. But his vote was also for "Track Controls
> Panel". I think it should still count because as long as this thread has
> become, there's been little new information since he unsubscribed,
> shortly after I put it to the first vote.
> 
> And really, I cannot afford to spend more time on this thread. My vote
> has been the same for weeks. I probably will not participate any further
> on this, but please remember and count my vote, if this continues. I
> really don't know why the vote we had weeks ago went for naught. As far
> as I can see, maybe only one person has changed his mind.

> > I'm still casting my vote for "Track Pane". 
> 
> -1. Nothing else is called a "pane" in Audacity. And it's no more
> informative than "Track Panel".
> 
> >It's short and easy to write,
> > unobjectionable as an interface term, the most backwards-compatible,
> > and for those who worry users will always see "controls" as only the 
> > sliders whatever we do, safe. 
> > 
> > I respect all the comments about "Track Control Panel", please see 
> > my responses to Bill inline.  I think for the calibre of users I have to   
> > deal with (well below the average on the Forum), it's a mistake, and
> > I expect we have many thousands of such users.
> 
> It's unwise to make choices based on the lowest common denominator.
> Makes the results the least they can be.
> 
> Likewise for "design by committee".
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Much of these and other discussions turn on how much weight to give 
> > to less savvy users' needs vis a vis "standard practice", which might 
> > dictate other solutions. Maybe I give too much weight to these sort of
> > people, but they can be very resentful and angry about what they see 
> > as "geeky" interface and documentation that says what things are but
> > not what they do. 
> 
> And savvy users don't want to be forced to use an overly hand-holding,
> do-you-really-want-to-do-that-alert-dialog-whenever-you-do-anything,
> non-standard-names box of crayons. They want a sophisticated, powerful
> audio editor.
> 
> Angry and resentful is those users' personality problem. They want a box
> of crayons, but this *free*, award-winning toolkit is too complicated
> for them, so rather than try to learn something, they throw a tantrum.
> They're being childish, and worse. I say tell them to behave like
> adults, and don't let it bother you.
> 
> 
> 
> >I think our Tutorials help here to some extent and 
> > should be further developed/extended.  
> > 
> > If we go for "Track Control Panel", I would expect us to call the items 
> > on the Thing "Controls" as per Bill's draft:
> > http://manual.audacityteam.org/index.php?title=Talk:Audio_Tracks
> 
> +1.
> 
> - Vaughan
> 
> 
> > 
> > -1 on "Track Controls Box" or "Track Control Box". Let's be "standard" if 
> > we go down that route.
> >    
> >  
> > | From Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...> 
> > | Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:05:11 -0500
> > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility o sync-lock
> > | mini-clock icon in Track Panel
> >>
> >> On 13-Nov-10, at 11:45 PM, Gale Andrews wrote:
> >>
> >> Looking up "panel" in a thesaurus we find:
> >>
> >> "a control panel CONSOLE, instrument panel, dashboard; instruments,  
> >> controls, dials."
> >>
> >> I'm not saying I want to call it the "Track Instrument Panel" (which  
> >> is inherently intimidating - associations with the "instrument panel"  
> >> of an airliner), or the "dashboard". But I found it interesting that  
> >> looking up "panel" in a thesaurus, the first example was "a control  
> >> panel console".
> > 
> > While "Control Panel" has entered common usage, with all due respect 
> > TrackInfo doesn't really look much like an OS Control Panel, which I 
> > think is what that phrase would typically bring to mind for an average 
> > user. It would need to be an actual moveable, resizable window (and
> > if so we could actually call it "Track Toolbar" or "Track Bar"). 
> > 
> > Plus there aren't usually multiple "Control Panels" controlling the same 
> > wider "thing". I think "Control Panel" could make it harder to get across 
> > the largely per-track nature of TrackInfo (and yes "Track Manager" 
> > might have been worse still in that regard). 
> > 
> > 
> >>> | From Bill Wharrie <bi...@go...>
> >>> | Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:40:49 -0500
> >>> | Subject: [Audacity-quality] Track Controls - was: Visibility of  
> >>> sync-lock
> >>> | mini-clock icon in Track Panel
> >>>>> I still would much prefer two words "Track <something>", precisely
> >>>>> because it is more generic, not to say less clumsy.  But it's hard
> >>>>> to find a
> >>>>> good word for <something>. I think "Pane" might work, and could be a
> >>>>> more common UI term than "Box"? It's also less of a wrenching change
> >>>>> for backwards compatibility.  Possibly "pane" could make people  
> >>>>> think
> >>>>> of something more like "TrackPanel" than "box" would, but I think  
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> a very moot point. I don't recall any user has ever thought of Track
> >>>>> Panel in the sense of a wider area outside the track.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think "Pane" is no better than "Panel".
> >>>>
> >>> Except that "Track Pane" is clearly not the TrackPanel class ?  Main
> >>> problem solved, without any danger of increasing confusion for some
> >>> users? Or "Track <add your suggestion here>".
> >>
> >> This is where we get into common usage of these terms. Most people  
> >> think of a "window pane" or a "pane of glass". In fact, the dictionary  
> >> included with the Mac says:
> >>
> >> "a single sheet of glass in a window or door.
> >> • Computing - a separate defined area within a window for the display  
> >> of, or interaction with, a part of that window's application or output.
> >> • a sheet or page of postage stamps.
> >>
> >> So, yes, from a UI perspective it is technically correct, but from a  
> >> naive user perspective I think it is potentially confusing, or at  
> >> least off-putting.
> > 
> > Depends on our guesstimate of how different levels of users perceive 
> > the interface. I don't know, beyond what I see them saying. We could 
> > do with more formal studies like that one done by South American 
> > researchers a while ago.  There is no feedback that "Track Panel" 
> > has confused beyond the pre-existing confusion. 
> > 
> > I would also point our that user feedback about calling everything 
> > "controls" in the 1.2 "track Control Panel" was hostile. I think we will 
> > have to do it if we go for "Track Control Panel", but hopefully the
> > general care we're taking not to be geeky in this Manual will outweigh 
> > any problems.
> > 
> >  
> >>> I still think (being realistic) a generic name is beneficial for our  
> >>> least
> >>> capable users. A "Control Panel" must have controls on it, or it  
> >>> isn't a
> >>> control panel. And thus many (maybe even more users than now) will
> >>> carry on thinking the thing only does mixing or volume control.
> >>
> >> This assumes they know what it's called because they've read the  
> >> manual, in which case they have at least been told what it does, that  
> >> it contains controls and status indicators, like any other "control  
> >> panel".
> >  
> > Not really, Bill. They could see the name on Quick Guide and not read 
> > further. They could flick to [[Audio Tracks]], assume they know what a 
> > Control Panel is as per its "sliders" connotation, and not read further. 
> > We can't assume the Manual will be read properly, any more than it 
> > will be read at all. 
> > 
> > 
> >>>>> Clearly we can't include "Mixer", "Mixing" or "Volume" in the name
> >>>>> which
> >>>>> were popular choices in the survey, though to me the desire to say
> >>>>> "what
> >>>>> the thing does" is instructive. Sadly I haven't really got any great
> >>>>> ideas,
> >>>>> though I thought the "Track Manager" idea was very much along the
> >>>>> right
> >>>>> lines. It (might) make the user think and explore more.
> >>>>
> >>>> -1 for "Track Manager". To me, that would be something that manages
> >>>> tracks - e.g. allows one to group tracks or hide/show tracks.
> >>>>
> >>> I partly agree with that reservation, but TrackInfo does allow you  
> >>> to split
> >>> and re-combine stereo tracks, it does allow you to remove that  
> >>> track, and
> >>> it does allow you to effectively hide/show that track with the  
> >>> "collapse"
> >>> button. All things that many users don't know.
> >>
> >> Because they won't RTFM and won't explore the UI. So what does it  
> >> matter what we call it if they never read it in the manual?
> >>
> >> Your survey respondents had never looked it up in the manual. They  
> >> looked at the thing and said what they'd call it based on what they  
> >> thought it did. This confusion has nothing to do with what it's  
> >> called, and everything to do with how it is presented, and the  
> >> "computer savvy-ness" of the respondents.
> >>
> > See above - they may partly read the Manual, or the term for the thing 
> > may eventually be used in a Tooltip. 
> > 
> > Actually, we don't know whether the respondents had read our 
> > Manual or not, I just asked them to tell us what they think thingy 
> > should be called, disregarding what it's called now. 
> > 
> > Please also be aware that users may read other documentation than 
> > our Manual (e.g. those provided by hardware bundlers, which users
> > often see as "our official manual", or third-party web blogs).     
> >  
> > Everyone agrees users don't explore. My suggestion boils down to the 
> > fact we could be innovative and call the thing something that grabs 
> > attention. Yes they have to RTFM to some extent, but to be ridiculous,
> > if we had a "Track Guru" I betcha more people would read what it did. 
> > 
> > 
> >>> "Track Control Panel" could easily imply those things you said too. It
> >>> only doesn't to us because we happen to know it has per-track controls
> >>> that mostly (but by no means entirely) affect only that track, and
> >>> because we are associating "Track Control Panel"  with such a thing
> >>> with foreknowledge.
> >>
> >> And how can we ever get away from that foreknowledge? Would we want to  
> >> if we could? Experience with other audio editing programs exposes us  
> >> to "industry standard" terminology and practice, which I believe we  
> >> should follow - not to be slavish followers but as a service to people  
> >> who start out with Audacity and then move on to other programs.
> >  
> > A very good point for sure, but it's all a question of degree. There would 
> > be nothing non-standard IMO in "Track Pane", and at the other extreme 
> > I think we all agree the thing should not be e.g. "the Track Controls"  as
> > in Cool Edit Pro. 
> > 
> > I don't see using an inventive term for "Track Panel" would necessarily be 
> > a bad thing. To me, Track Panel is a clever (if over-full) entity that very 
> > clearly defines Audacity. Is there anything exactly like it in other software?
> > I don't know the answer to that, but I think that could be a case for giving 
> > it a unique name (i.e. not being "slavish").
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Gale