Quote:

. . . what for . . . a relative newcomer are its greatest problems - how is it used, the user interface, and the learning curve/tutorials . . . The main problem is a failure to identify how will the product likely be used . . .

The product tries . . . to be all things to all men, and ends up satisfying nobody, unless you are willing to invest the time the read all the tutorials, user guides, etc. . . Better would be to prompt the user during installation what their typical usage patterns will be, and reduce the feature/option clutter accordingly. . .

. . . the user interface seems to have been design by a software engineer for other software engineers. It is . . . not intuitive. The screen is . . . clogged with feaures and options that probably no single user will . . . use . . .

Windows "View" option . . . is missing . . .

  • Tutorials: . . . give the impression of having been written by an engineer, who believes that we should progress in the straight-line sequence A-Z as the best way to learn.
  • In lesson 2, we are prompted to load the song called " L_BOSMED.MGU", without knowing where the song is actually located.
  • We learn that there is a Visible Metronome feature, without an explanation of how to invoke it . . .
  • in the same tutorial . . . is an explanation about the General Midi Patch List. Why should the user reading lesson 2 need to know about this level of detail? The tutorial explains that to pressing the spacebar pauses a song, and that pressing the spacebar releases it. Instead, pressing the spacebar twice restarts the song from the beginning . . .
  • the word "improvise" doesn't appear in the help index. Is it possible to display/print the notations for the improvisation versions rendered by BIAB?

. . . I am also an engineer, and . . . I'm a firm believer in the concept that the project is finished, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there nothing more to be taken away. [The engineering definition of "elegance". -R]



Anything that follows is written in the spirit of making the incredible BIAB easier to use for myself and others. O PG, may you live forever! Hear our plea! Let not your hearts be hardened against our desire to walk in your ways! He'p me, Rhonda! All we are asking is that our beloved BIAB be made easier to use.

Paul identifies two primary issues: Program complexity, reflected in deep and detailed menus and toolbars, and difficulty in learning BIAB and accessing program functions, caused by the complex menus themselves, the lack of "programmed learning", and inadequate indexing. BIAB's very strength as a musical "Swiss Army knife" becomes the greatest obstacle to its easy use. A third issue is the inclusion of errors which are confusing and offputting, especially to the newcomer, who is likely to think that they are doing something wrong.

Many years ago Aston Martin introduced the Lagonda. The introductory model had, in addition to the usual gauges, forty four indicator lights in a 4 x 11 block. To its credit, the Lagonda included an "essential functions" switch which cut those glaring indicators down to 12.

A similar approach would be useful here. Imagine the usefulness of a BIAB optimized for live use--or recording, or chord entry--with ONLY those controls needed for same visible, instead of the clutter of dozens upon dozens of commands not needed for the immediate task. (The complexity of the GUI is precisely why I would not think of using BIAB live. And if there are ways around that, remember that it is the interface which puts me off pursuing it.)

BIAB is many things, many of which I am unlikely to use (the Conductor, e.g.). Major functions could be identified and separated and user customization made possible. "Personalized Menus", which in Windows are an annoyance, come to mind.

I easily become distracted while attempting to learn a new function. At first I was gleeful about the expanding concept or "Easter egg" effect--the process of answering a question raises more, taking me in directions I would not have gone on my own--but after a time it became tedious. Sometimes I just want the answer to a question. The tutorials take me in directions I don't want to go. The index is missing references to essential or highly useful information which does exist, it is just very hard to find.

I just looked back into the index of the manual for Version 11, in which I have made handwritten inserts for easy reference back to topics which I find important. Between "Visual Metronome, 261" and "Voicings, 50, 182, 286" I have entered "Voice leading, 230". Under "Volume" there are the subheadings "Allowing Changes, Changes, Setting". I have added "Enhanced Control". (Why was this missing in the first place?) Ironically, I see that between "Short Filenames, 276" and "Sight-reading, 127" I insterted an entry for "Shortcuts, 256". Come on, guys! (Note that, if PG are not going to address this deficiency, a printed manual is essential in order that all users may do the same.)

Two solutions come to mind: a third-party manual, and programmed learning. Users have been clamoring for a "BIAB For Dummies" for years. This is not PG's responsibility, but perhaps PG could enlist the help of specialists in technical writing and programmed learning to help create or revise the existing manuals and the tutorials.

Alas, I live alone. The empty side of my bed is filled with manufacturer and third-party manuals for Nuendo, Reason, RealBand (which I had to print myself), and BIAB. I LOVE THESE PROGRAMS. I am willing to do what it takes to use any program of value. But I have felt utterly overwhelmed by BIAB since Version 7, which came on a couple of floppies! And I am beginning to feel the same about RealBand. NOTHING IN THE PROGRAM ITSELF IS AT ISSUE. It is all about learning and usage. HELP US HELP OURSELVES.

Richard

P.S.: Please note that in any areas in which I am capable of doing so, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am a writer, a Level II copy editor, highly organized and highly motivated to see these suggestions implemented. If there is any way in which I can help, I will. -R.

P.P.S: What Matt refers to as a "wizard" is known in programming circles as an "agent"--a software routine whose job it is to learn the user's habits, make suggestions and adapt accordingly. (The Microsoft "Paper Clip" is a feeble attempt at this.) This is high-end stuff, off in MIT Media Lab territory--the exact people I would like to see involved in improving PG products. These are the people who define computing and user interfaces. Peter, would you consider approaching them about consulting? -"Archie"

P.P.P.S.: From the back of the box, BIAB Version 11: ". . . Dr. Peter Gannon began creating Band-in-a-Box after being frustrated by difficult to use music software programs." Jeez, Doc, what were you using then? -Ryś

Last edited by Ryszard; 05/06/09 08:58 AM.
"My primary musical instrument is the personal computer."