Re: [LCtalk] Will it do what I want?

[PragmaLab]

Hello Fokko,

> Yes, LCedit+ is a piece of very complex software, but just for one  
> reason: you can fully exploit all features, and you need it for 
> complex shows.

it's a common misunderstanding that, if the task is complex, the 
application should be complex. In fact it exlains the basic problem of 
LCEdit. Why is the learning curve that steep: because LCEdit lacks some 
fundamental UI-interface principles. But I'm not going to rewind my 
comments from the past and play them again here. Let us say there is a 
major difference in how CDS judges the current UI and how I look at it. 
I won't say I'm a UI-designer expert, but last time the usability lab of 
the Technical University in Delft (were I studied UI-design) looked for 
some poor examples of UI-desing for their course, I sent them LCEdit 
with my comments. No need to say that their conclusions were no 
compliment for the designers. Yes, the program contains a lot of 
functionality, but 1) you need too much time to get to it and 2) after 
not using the program for 2 weeks, the learning curve starts at '0' 
again. Don't make the mistake by showing examples of users that do know 
how to use the program. I know how to use LCEdit as well, that is not 
the point. That is just because the functions you need are indeed 
available in the program. The problem (challenge) is to design the 
program in such a way that novice, moderate and experienced users can 
easily find their way around. I'm not saying LCEdit is worthless, I'm 
just saying that it can be improved in many ways.

> At 17:01 +0100 02-01-2008, PragmaLab wrote:
> > I'm convinced that if they would create LCEdit from scratch (not 
> > using the silly platform that allows them to use the same codebase 
> > for Mac, Windows and Linux and for that reasing missing some well 
> > adapted and elementary UI-aspects of each specific platform), they 
> > would sell a lot more boxes.
>
> Sorry Rob, but the reality is very different. We sell many 
> boxes in repeating projects just because the LanBox offers 
> real value for your money, and can be programmed from nearly 
> any platform.

I'm not saying it is a bad thing that you try to support 3 platforms. I 
suppose from a selling point of view that is OK. I'm saying that the 
comprimises are too severe to keep using the development environment you 
are using now. Because it results in omitting context-menus, poor 
resizing and repositioning capabilities of windows, toolbars, 
menu-behaviour, etc, etc.  Very basic and well adapted properties of 
each platform, but to be honest, that is not even the biggest problem in 
the current UI.

> Yes LCedit+ has a few compromises due to the multi-platform concept 
> (it could be e.g. much nicer for the OS X platform), still most people 
> do not want to pay extra for nice manuals and nice looking software if 
> it does not have more functionality (if I am wrong see below).

Second misunderstanding. Nobody is wating for 'nice looking software'. 
You keep saying that in your comments, and I keep saying that we are 
waiting for software that leaves the user in control, instead of the 
other way around.  You keep saying that we want more functionality and I 
keep saying that I don't need new functionality that is too hard to use. 
In fact, by keep putting more functions in the current application, the 
need for logical designed patterns gets even more urgent. Although I'm 
sure you're doing a good job by serving a (small?) group of users that 
were awaiting these new functions and I must say that the support of CDS 
is one of big plusses of the company.

> There are already several "theatre minded" software packages for the 
> LanBox, and many people made custom solutions, and that is a good 
> development. 

I've been examining SW-packages for a long time and so far I found only 
Midi based packages that are suitable to control the Lanbox (which in 
fact turns it into an expensive Midi-DMX converter). Lassi is not able 
to control moving lights and controling moving lights in a comprehensive 
way is the real testcase for these kind of packages. Setting up cues in 
a list using dimmers only might be sufficient for some users, but not 
for me. If real alternatives for LCEdit exist, please report a list. 
Custom made solutions in general are custom.... not general, and 
therefor only useful for a very limited group of users.

> We will keep support, product quality and product features to our top 
> priorities, and leave opportunities for software -and- manual writers. 
> Write a fantastic "Starting with LanBox", and "Easy theatre super 
> software"; you will have our support and you can make some money. Best 
> of all, it offers people like Rob to buy a good LanBox book and a 
> special easy to use simple lighting software.

Third misunderstanding. No way you can write a good manual for poorly 
designed applications. Start with a good UI-design, eg by writing the 
manual first. Seriously. Besides that, I reckon that as a CDS-job, 
making a good LanBox book and a special easy to use simple lighting 
software (as I don't suppose your goal is to develop hard to use 
lighting software without documentation ;-). I know CDS is a small 
company and has to set their priorities. I'm only hoping that a redesign 
of LCEdit is on that list one day. If you would hear my proposals for 
improvement, just let me know.


Thanks for your time and best regards,


Rob van Lieshout