Conquistador's Forum Page

@Pigini wrote:

Oh yes, the mockup is a great example of how much better a picture can explain some things.
If I’m not mistaken, your first selector would allow to select the snap grid value (what I called time snap), then there are the quick note buttons, and a seperate quantize on/off button for snapping to duration aswell?

Yes that is pretty much it. Samplitude (where the screen shot is from) has some strange mixes of translated German to English that does not simplify the process of finding out what is what at times.

So essentially, quickbuttons on top would make things difficult for me, as long as the menu can’t wrap around. Floating panel or left from the piano roll (as it is now) would work.

The floating bar is a very good idea. Something I could dock / snap next to the current buttons e.t.c in the PR.

I would also most certainly be interested in some sort of region properties option or similar so that I could move it above the PR…and away from the keys…at the very least.

YES thanks Frits !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@estwing wrote:

many of the entries could be copied and pasted from Frit’s explanations of new features posted here on the forum.

mart.

Superb idea!

@Zynewave wrote:

But people would still expect a 3.0 release coming out within 1-2 year after a 2.0 release, as is the normal practice. It was your comment on the VIP topic about the purchase page changes, that made me realize that I need to disassociate the version numbering from peoples expectations when they see a x.xx version format.

Funnily enough it was your test page (on the VIP) that made me think of the upgrade perception of Podium and the need to clarify it. 🙂

Some would read that as Feb the 9th. (and not 2009).

Sometimes there are also more than one release within one month, so year+month is not sufficient

Maybe yes.

So what about this then?

Scrap the current system. Some clarification will be needed on the Zynewave homepage and via an announcement on KVR e.t.c.

Simply call 2.09 “Update 1”. This will be a totally new phase for Podiums branding so to speak. That way it will be clear it is a new start version wise. Update 2 and Update 3 will of course follow not long after that so it will be very clear that one should not expect a major upgrade as…

a. It will surely be explained in the announcement re launch.

b. No one will expect Update 2 to be some huge feature addition as the frequency of the release will remove any such expectation.

I thought about “Update 1.00” but it is too close the the numbering system many are already used to. As soon as we get to Update 1.99 expectations for Update 2.00 will soar. Not the case with “Update 1” as within a few weeks / months we hit Update 2,3 e.t.c. People will easily understand the Podium update concept IMO within a very short space of time if not immeadiately.

“Update 1” is different yet simple. It must be different enough to get the point across that Podiums development is update based not update and upgrade based. I think this idea along with some brief clarification (maybe wrapped inside a product relaunch and site update) would work very well.

@Zynewave wrote:

For people that may not know the reasoning behind it, it may appear as an attempt to inflate public opinion of Podium by jumping from 2.09 to 9.01. I fear that it would be the subject of ridicule on forums like kvr.

I agree. It can be easily perceived the wrong way. One slip up like that and it can damage a product for a very long time, especially in such a competitive market. 😐

If the problem is too many digits in “2009.1”, an alternative would be to remove the period in the old version numbers, and present the version as “build 209”, “build 210” etc.?

…”build” sounds like beta to me (the reality could not be further from it of course). I would simply explain on your website that Zynewave does not offer upgrades. Even that explanation is not needed until 2.99…many months or longer from now. Then again to clarify and make things clear to new buyers maybe now is better.

2009.1 seems odd IMO. Removing the period from 2.09 or 2.10 is a whisker away from what we have now.

You could try this if you really must change it…

..updates named after the month they are released…so if you release an update in March simply call it March 09. If the next update follows in June…then Jun 09.

“Zynewave have released a Feb 09 update for Podium”

It is quite differrent and would make me want to find out why the updates are named this way. It creates interest and clearly suggests a massive 3.00 update is somehow not the way things are done here. People just want to know why. I still think the currrent naming convention e.t.c is fine but if you must change it (I can understand your reasons) then that is my suggestion.

Goodnight all! 🙂

Pigini…

I think the level of complexity and flexibility Mikes suggestion offers is best used in an advance mode, that is what I was referring to. Even a “Span track” (yes I read his post) or similar is too much complexity potentially for a new user. That is the point I was trying to make. 🙂

@Pigini wrote:

@pavouk100 wrote:

Sounds like a great idea. But I tried to imagine how track headers and mixer would look like, and I wasn’t able to come up with anything acceptable. Fortunately, I’m definitely not the smartest UI designer of the world… 😉

The smartest GUI designer in the world will find a solution, I hope. 😉

Seems like a potentially large job but it does look like a new lease of life in a big way for the current Expanded mode. Ironic in a way. “Advanced” mode might be better this time because the suggestion Mike came up with sounds pretty wild (in a good way) 😉

Or maybe even “buckle up” mode would be a better fit 😛