PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Specific suggestions - Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and “other”

This thread is for suggestions regarding the Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and other. This is for specific suggestions only, not general comments. There are a few ideas extracted from the main user interface enhancements thread

Robertw
(Mockup showing possible main screen layou)
See Post: https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=838960#Post838960
See Post: https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=838961#Post838961


Rustyspoon:
Radio Bar - removed or made optional. Definitely hidden on default installation.
*Usable "Timeline" Navigator across most views.



Jeff Pettit:
TRANSPORT: Moving the Transport to the bottom giving more room for navigator view, more interactive transport buttons and other global things such as snap and loop states.



1) Areas in gray at the top are fixed showing the open/save options, to the Left are fixed icons (buttons) that control (Open/Close) windows in the main window (Green area)
2) The blue area is for wherever PGM feels should go there.
3) The Red areas are for toolbars (See earlier post showing how clean the GUI is, doing this)
4) Any window that opens in the green area should be able to float if the user wants.

Andrew.

if you think my comments arent applicable please delete.

my concern is re new users.
i would like to see commonality of layout tween rb and bb to cut down the learning cycle for new users.
but thats just me.

om

1) +1 Radio optional (this hinges on "Layouts" based on customers' needs and what they are aspect they are using at the time)
2) + 1 movable Transport (because it gives more room for the global actions (loop, snap, bar/beat, navigation).

R 1) + 1 to idea of fixed things. location and content up to PGM
2) Same as 1
3) +1 Toolbars, (standards (based on workflow) and Custom (based on customer)
4) +1

OM: Off topic, suggest adding thread on thing you like in RB that you would like to see in BB

About the radio buttons (radio bar), I recall looking over everything I wanted to do and finding that I could do it using the menus. Since the radio buttons are no longer complete, given the introduction of Utility tracks, I don't think they need to be there. I suppose +1 for it being an option, but one turned off by default going forward.

JP.

sorry but i politely disagree with you.

why ? because if things go on as they are confusion will
continue for new users....as currently...new users are often confused by 'when should i use xyz in bb vs rb'. ...as evinced by many posts on these forums over the years.
ie the look and feel of bb will continue to be way different between bb and rb. ie toolbars/layout/gui etc etc.

if pg decide my views are 'off base' they can delete this post....but i feel strongly that the nits and grits of a new bb gui should take into account all pg's products.
not just bb. after many many years of useing pg's products even i get confused sometimes going between bb and rb....even though there are features that overlap tween both programs.

maybe thinking about it maybe a user layout in any pg product
should be user configurable not just bb ?
JP lots of nice layout ideas have been presented but i'm very concerned about new users.


om

I believe there is a general consensus that panels are the way forward. If this will be adopted, I believe that newly added unrelated - non content tools do not belong in the Library (MTP) and should be moved elsewhere. Specifically Chords and Lyrics as they belong to Tools category - likely perfect candidates for panel tabs.

An exception to this wish would be if PGM makes possible to detach certain tabs and user would be able to assemble their own custom tabbed clusters, with user defined order.

1) Panel are a direct replacement for all modal and non-modal windows (Tabs are panels within panels (think current mixer))
2) I feel the same way, The Library of "Smart Musicians" should be just that. Just like in a browser panel.

"(Tabs are panels within panels (think current mixer))"
I don't want to think current mixer, we are trying to think with new heads here
In the spirit of specific suggestions for this thread, transplanting a wish for modular "Tabs". If this idea is too much, please consider at least an option for any tabbed panel to be able to hide the tabs you don't need/use and re-arrange order.

Sure, no issue.
I was just trying to open the eyes to potential of the modern approach to details.

Transplanting a video example of auto track zoom. If "none" of the tracks are selected, pulling edge of the track expands all dynamically. When track header is selected, you should be able to expand just single track, while others retain their width:

One DAW feature that I used extensively for the past 8 years is touch screen navigation. While definitely is clunky for edits and 80% of other tasks, I found it simply amazing for scrolling and zooming in and out of tracks.
So request is Touch-screen compatibility for navigation in Track View and any other view that deals with horizontal scrolling and zooming.

I noticed that last night while testing on my laptop. No touch screen support.

I was hesitating in which specific suggestion area to mention it as it's a global feature pertaining to the entire UI.

PGMs development tool should have touch screen support libraries available to use.

I don't like the usage of large, puffy buttons with very pronounced gradient in BIAB. I would prefer a more flat /neutral look (everywhere) If it was up to me, I would get rid of at least 1/2 of the button graphics and replace them with just text buttons.
If re-design will be done with future in mind - fully configurable, you can have different "themes", and if someone is into puffy-gradient stuff, they can have this look in a matter of of a few clicks.

Yes, all buttons should first and foremost support the OS level text which is crisper and easier to read and scales to customers needs.
Pictures are a secondary nice to have and should be translucent backgrounds to support the color theme.

There is one small exception where you're making small toolbars of tools such as pencils for writing erasers for deleting Cursor for moving in that case a small transparent background picture works best because you do not have room for the text,

Me too. For me there's too much 'clutter'.

One of the difficulties with graphics buttons is making a suitable set of graphics that mean something to the user. It seems a great idea to avoid words and use pictures, but in reality, for many graphics buttons, we read the short text or hover to read the tool-tip. Of course using text does need translations, though I guess most/all of that already exists.

I think part of the issue with the present graphics buttons is that PGM try to get the pictures meaningful by putting in quite a bit of detail, which is why the buttons are quite large. That both wastes real-estate and makes the effect rather VGA-like.

BIAB is delivered in multiple language translations. The company needs to effectively manage that when considering multilingual versions.

Yes the OS will know what the native language is.
This is why some do use pictures but they have to be universally recognized like a pencil or scissors.
Buttons that toggle on/off should show the current state visually.

dont jump all over me BUT...

ive used many apps in the past that have pens and scissors and other tools.
drives me nuts....frustrates the heck out of me....CONSTANTLY.
just keep it KISS...

eg editing a audio or midi track.

1..user hilites a track section then..
2..right click over the hilited area and a edit menu appears.
ie kiss.


i recommend taking a leaf out of reaps v2 book that i like.
KISS !! thats why i like it.
i prefer an app be more intuitive and for me the fewer the graphic tool buttons the better.

honestly i'm NOT trying to be a 'A' ...but the above are my honest feelings.
think of vision impaired people for example trying to use a pen .
but thats just me.

om

Although I would agree with you and I'm a huge advocate of PGM simplifying existing to pure context actions and adding missing unique context menus, that action is at least two clicks away.
There is a difference between editing audio and editing midi. Usually, MIDI edits can involve more action tools.

The state of the art in editing is what many companies call a smart tool.
Smart tools change to a behavior that you would expect based on a where you are at on the target.
For example, editing midi the tool will change depending on if you're on the left right top or bottom of a note, when editing audio, the tool will change depending on if you're at the top, middle, bottom or start/ends of an audio clip.

+1000 for smart tool in BIAB.

I dislike smart tools as I find them confusing. A smart tool cursor is great for a user with experience with editing tracks in general, experienced with the software and familiar with the tracks in a song project. But I'm a novice at editing and find a smart tool is a distraction. I spend more time worrying about what tool is engaged on the smart tool. Is the smart tool set up to perform the task I want or is it in the wrong mode of operation. Generally speaking I perform tasks sequentially so a smart tool doesn't work for me.

My opinion is users new to track editing in general or new to Band-in-a-Box will find a smart tool a distraction.

However a smart tool really speeds up editing when a user has experience editing and uses a smart tool a lot.

For those reasons I hope that a Band-in-a-Box smart tool can quickly and easily be enabled and disabled as the user desires. For example an enable/disable toggle button on an editing tools toolbar.

Jim.

+1...
i agree with an option to turn them off.

happiness

om

"My opinion is users new to track editing in general or new to Band-in-a-Box will find a smart tool a distraction."
Cakewalk people, including me love the tool. Why would you want to click around, finding tools, if the smart tool will "know" exactly what you want to do. I find it indispensable and a huge time saver. Jim, perhaps you didn't give it a chance? I tried most DAWs on the market. Cakewalk has the best smart tool hands down. You have Cakewalk. Spend 10-15 minutes with it, see if this will change your view.

"I hope that a Band-in-a-Box smart tool can quickly and easily be enabled and disabled as the user desires" - That exactly how it works in Cakewalk. +1

P.S. Smart tool doesn't prevent you working sequentially. You are not doing 2-3-5 tasks at once. Meaning, if you do selection, you can continue doing 20 separate selections and when you need to move track, you just point it on a different part of the track. In any case, I feel that it is a matter of taste, but I suggest giving it a chance.

Thanks Misha but I've tried Cakewalk's smart tool and Audacity's multi-tool. I haven't taken a liking to either one. I guess I prefer selecting an editing tool rather than have the tool selection automatically change based on cursor position in a track. I "stole" the idea of enabling/disabling a smart tool from Cakewalk.

Both Cakewalk and Audacity have editing tool keyboard shortcuts and edit tool toolbars. The keyboard shortcut method of choosing an editing tool seems to work best for me but I really like having an edit toolbar available for use too.

The Songs, Styles, RealTracks, RealDrums, UserTracks, MIDI SuperTracks, MIDI Tracks, MIDI Soloists, Melodists and Titles tabs each have a bunch of columns.

I would like to see in the MultiPicker Library tabs listed above a pop-up hint detailing what data is in a column when my cursor hovers over a column header.

Chord Sheet and Track View Header context menus:
- Simplifies to pure context of where the mouse is.
- MP Library has long sense replaced the needs for much of existing context menu options. (many just open MP anyway)
- Removes things that are better supported in other places.
- Removes some EOL things.
- Not perfect as a few things could come or go in main and sub-context menus.
- A 1) Track Event/Clip area, 2) Timeline area, and 3) NEW "Liner Chord Timeline" area in Track View, context menus are pending mockups...

Here’s a rare case where I do like the older ways. I’m not a fan of a smart tool. I prefer a few tool icons side by side, and I’ll pick the one I want.

Yes I agree.

Edit:
I might have been a bit hasty. I have not really used any smart tools in DAWs or music software so I don´t really know. It will probably be fine as long as it is intuitive (my first reaction to "smart tools" got me to think about my Android mobile and it drives me crazy).

I agree too

Use drop-down menu for old icons/func. to save the space of main screen

Cakewalk has it both ways. A configurable Smart tool and standard tools. I don't believe it was suggested anywhere in the thread to replace one for another. I agree that both methods are needed. I kindly, ask not voting down something, that if by a very slim chance will get done - will not change your habits. Try to be constructive and suggest a feature or two, or improvement that you do want to see.
Thank you.

Most of the time, I support change requests if they are optional. People sometimes need time to adapt. An example of how PG Music handled this well was the 2018 new GUI, leaving the older one available with a toggle Ctrl+T.

In general, we have the same number of posts as the original PGM sponsored UI thread (~100) before a PGM reply, only divided into 5 sub threads. This gives PGM a next level detail on 5 out of the 25 ideas in the original thread.

There is still only the top ~10 contributors offering opinions and ~5 offering ideas.
There is the traditional divide found in the forum of "no change needed" and "radical change needed" camps. However, there are many suggestions not expanded on.

PGM has remained silent on their pinned sub threads as well.
If they want improved input, they will have to speak up.

Smart tools are used in lots of DAWs, IMO it's a modern standard that can dramatically improve the workflow if implemented well.

In Studio One Pro the smart tools have numbers 1 on up as key switches for each smart tool. You can also select each smart tool by right clicking. Hopefully one or the other or both can be implemented in BiaB.

The menus have to be streamlined. For example how many copy and paste options do we really need. IMHO the MS methods are all we need, i.e. right click copy and paste and Ctrt C and V.

Others have already mentioned my other thoughts.

i think this thread and others re bb gui illustrate clearly what one person wants another might not. and theres nothing the matter with that. and i note the wider group of bb users has yet to comment...
which i hoped would occur rather than a few of us.

its a problem lots of devs wrestle with...ie how to make the most users happy.

correct me if i'm wrong but i think the above illustrates how important it is for any new gui to be very VERY user configurable.
even tho this might bloat the bb exe....and i really hope pg can pull it off without the new gui being 'cluttered'.

for example i like music apps that offer track views whereby i can maximise waveform real estate. a reason i like reaps v2 and rb.
i dont enjoy environments where i have to do a ton of mouse moves to do things....flitting around many different views.
i beg pg to make the new bb tracks view 'creation central' to make users more productive. in reaps and rb i can do most of my work in tracks view.

obviously the bb menus need a lot of re-thinking.
ive used bb for many years yet i still get confused tween 'is this feature in track actions' for example or 'do i use the top menus.'...????
very confuseing. even more so for a new user.
as to preferences they havent bothered me much but i can see why prefs might cause some confusion.
to be fair i think such was the result of many user requests over the years like other aspects of bb.

i'll throw this out there as its the 'elephant in the room' imho.
will you all be happy with a highly user configurable gui EVEN IF the exe might bloat more ? ie a user can basically design their own gui any way they want. useing a new bb gui user design module feature.
i'm curious re the answers.

om

OM, yes, I think you are correct. When a group of fewer than 10 could not agree, and now it’s been thrown out to the whole user base, I don’t hold out a lot of hope for uniform agreement. There are two ways forward. First, acknowledge that not everyone is going to agree, and second, make the interface configurable with lots of options. I’ll take the bloat to make that happen.

OM, what you are saying makes little sense to me. Maybe it's the ESL thing.
It seems that you don't have the confidence in PGM. Nobody has to wrestle with anybody. They just have to modernize to the best of their ability, conforming to proven standards as much as possible rather than confronting them. Not sacrificing the future of BIAB to a dozen or two vocal users that are in favor of redundancy for the sake of very questionable personal comforts. Potentially losing hundreds if not thousands of newcomers.

Speaking to you directly. Instead of long write ups, give a clear suggestion for a feature or improvement. In the spirit of good manners, one specific feature / improvement per post. That is what is asked of these threads started by PGM staff. There are so many other forum sections to start a casual discussion...

Transplanting panel view suggestion for Bar Settings - F5 from older conversation.
The limit set for the amount of available tracks are 24. Which is quite a good number for arranging software.
In my illustration, you can see that all 24 tracks comfortably fit full size screen. I believe F5 is an excellent candidate for a panel, as current execution is severely flawed with a separate drop down for "non legacy" tracks and should be redesigned for ease of use and notion that "All Tracks Are Equal". This suggestion also includes shortening Track names for viewing purposes to bare minimum. For example: "2429: Bass, Electric". Ideally, panel should be "Detachable" & free floating on demand.

1) many agree that existing dialogues are all candidates for panels. Bar Settings, Chord Options, Micro Chords, Partial Gens etc.
3) Many things were designed due to the fact that BB did not have a track view. Now it does. The implications require a conceptual discussion. with the ability to select multiple tracks, an option can be applied to one or more intersections of time (the chord progression) and tracks. This s requires a re-think of all dialogues.

4) yes
5) yes
6) yes

Rusty(and All.)
the reasons i dont get into very deep detail re any new bb gui are..

1..the list of what i would like changed re gui would be very VERY extensive if i got down to the level of every menu and toolbar and dialog entry.... eg just on one dialog like audio drivers it would be oodles of typing and my eyes get tired frankly.

2..pg staff are very intelligent talented people.
i'm sure they are very very well aware of different gui issues.
so i assume they have concerns also about various gui aspects as they would use bb themselves.

3..we all know what the root problem is...viz..
pg over the years have tried obviously to keep lots of different users happy re user feature demands.
its a prob every dev faces.

you want specifics ?? re you said...
'give a clear suggestion for a feature or improvement'...

just one example i would like redesign of the drivers dialogs focused on new users and resolutions of driver installation problems.
and ease of prob diagnose and reporting.
reason being that in any music app most new users have often set up problems as weve seen on these forums over the years.
and its often not a pg problem but say a win setting.

with my new audio interface install awhile back i didnt have to do one bb driver tweak. bb ran first time....no probs.
but many new users arent techs and dont often realise the importance of windows and other settings etc etc. ie there are various pitfalls for a new user to music production. anything gui wise re problem solving if tech issues occurs would be of benefit imho. includeing helping pg tech support diagnose issues.

imho its no good haveing a beautifull eye candy new bb gui if the new user is stuck at the sound interface installation phase before useing the new gui whatever.
pg isnt alone in this...often users get problems with the driver and other settings in any music app.
in summary anything gui design wise that would help rapid problem diagnosis so a new user isnt frustrated would be of benefit imho.

obviously Rusty you and i dont agree on some things from our exchanges over time. but thats life it would be a boring world if we all agreed.
maybe you think this post is too lacking in some detail...
dunno...but i do the best i can and thats all i can do.
we are all different.

happiness.

om

Yes, we don't agree on many things. But one thing for sure. I asked you several times, including privately, not to derail these important threads and stay focused of what is being asked by PGM staff if you are participating.

Jeff,
We had this discussion in the past. The main issue of what you are proposing is constant "manual" reselection and that will be extremely challenging for several reasons.
#1 - each view is different. Selecting a random group of tracks will not be a unified process. Especially in expanded views. They would have to be minimized. Existing Bar Settings works in any view equally same.

#2 Intersection is defined by either selecting a particular bar, nearest bar to cursor position, or type in the panel itself. I think reinventing the wheel here is not needed.

#3 amounts of clicks and moves it will take to do things like:
Bar 1 -Mute all except for 2,4,5,8,9,12,15,17,22,24
Bar 3 - Unmute all except for 3,7,11,14, 17,22,24.
Bar 10 -Mute all except 2,6,23

To simply put, it can't be programed automatically, because of rules and overrides(Exceptions). And you can't automate selection inversion, as each change at the bar is individual user preference. Exceptions (overrides)

---------
I fully understand the concept you are proposing, I just believe existing logic for mutes/unmutes is brilliant and user should not think: "How do I do this in this view?". Since we talked about this before, it would be very interesting to hear from somebody else who is using Bar Settings - "Mutes" often.

#1 Yes there are cases especially if non continuous that the current approach which recreate the track view in the chord view works as good.
More importantly I'm beginning to see your side of the conversation only because BB is unique in that originally had a hard coded array of 7 x 255 chords, so they're hard coded approach to 7 tracks made sense. I think you have noticed when they tried to expand that to 24 it became more awkward.

#2 I don't understand the argument, but I was only showing how all DAWs deal with settings across many tracks (no reinventing at all). Just the idea of settings being in panel so they can be applied to many tracks as a good thing.

#3 this seems to be the same argument as #1

I do understand your point that the current hard coded approach works good for your scenarios (if real).
I am just used to dealing with settings be adjusted by the "selected tracks" norm, which is my key point.
There currently is no behavior/ action in BB that works by multiple selected tracks. This is due to the fact
that a multi-track view did not exist in the past. Now it does.

Hopefully we can agree that there are two good but different points here.

FWIW, may favourite question after closing a requirements-capture session was to as "If we didn't have to worry about things like timescales or budgets or physics, what would you like this to do?"

When the pressure and the worries were off, they'd come up with totally crazy ideas.
Sometimes I'd be able to say "actually, I think we may have a way to do that".

Unlike DAWs BIAB main task is arrangement. You have to be able to quickly try, change, flip items. This (current F5) is the fastest way. In about 80% of the cases, I would still use gain automation in DAW after transferring project either to adjust timing or artifacts that often creep in. Nevertheless it is still the fastest way to flesh out initial idea out. The difference between my #1 and #2 is this:

#1 specifically deals with expanded views. For example width zoomed Track view. You would either need to zoom out all the way, to have full access to (potentially) all 24 tracks in one screen, or scroll down through entire project, carefully selecting tracks.

#3 deals with mechanics. As if to be done your way, user would definitely need to use shortcuts. For example selecting all tracks, then holding CTRL trying to find proper tracks to exclude. And you would still need the window (panel) that would show you the list of what exactly was applied and where.

and that is actually #4
#4 - Because you need to be able to see what was applied and where, you would still need a panel to display all tracks mutes status and global changes. My proposition to leave all functions intact but to have it done better for improving workflow, fixing existing flaw of "utility" dropdown and embrace new design/panel
--------------------

There were 2 main reasons why a few years ago I was so insistent that we need more tracks besides legacy. One was obvious - to be able to to make better & richer arrangements, to have option to hear different tracks side by side on actual arrangement, but another reason was related specifically to Bar Changes. While you "can" change style at the bar, it has it's own set of issues, so I found the easiest and most stable way is to build arrangement of lets say 12 tracks and alternate between them using Bar Settings mutes at the bar on different parts of arrangement, instead of gluing pieces together on a single track (as some forum members did for many years). All I am saying, tool has a very specific purpose and I hope somebody who is using it often can offer a view.

That is an easy one. Focus more on a musical idea I am after and not obscure mechanics that need to be employed to achieve it. I gain nothing from the later, except of frustration and wasting time. This, I believe is the main goal of current and several other pinned conversations. Offer particular ideas on how to make workflow better and smoother.

I agree with RustySpoon# about F5 Bar Settings.

In addition to all the neat things a user can do to make a song more interesting by using the F5 Bar Settings, the F5 Bar Settings window allows the user to apply changes across multiple bars and choruses. The chorus and bar drop-down menus and the left/right arrows allows a user to navigate the whole chord sheet without leaving the window. The print summary at the bottom of the window allows the user to maintain a record of what changes were made.

I normally copy & paste the bar summary into the user side of the song memo. There is also a print bar summary button in the song memo window.

My suggestion is to have the bar summary print in the user song memo window whenever either button is selected instead of Notepad.

We are all trying to help, but to each his own.
Considering that > 99% of customers do not take the time to give feedback, it is time that PGM tell us what they are considering or else we are all wasting time.

I agree it will be helpful and nice for as many users and forum members to submit suggestions. I'm sure everyone reading these threads have thoughts on what changes they would like to see to the Band-in-a-Box graphic interface.

However I will point out that jump-on-the-bandwagon support for some ideas seem to be better acknowledged than dissenting views or the start of a discussion seeking clarification about how an idea will work in certain situations such as a middle chorus.

A lot of good ideas and especially mock-ups have been presented. But it seems as though most of the ideas are to make Band-in-a-Box more closely resemble a DAW. Less thought is given to Band-in-a-Box features that support it's strengths of song arrangement and backing track creation.

I believe RustySpoon# said it best, "Unlike DAWs BIAB main task is arrangement. You have to be able to quickly try, change, flip items."

Yeah, but it doesn't mean that DAW features already in place should not be completed to accepted standards and left As-Is. F5, in my view is definitely an exception, so are likely 100 other BIAB only items. I offered a mock that I think will work best for F5, as it mainly will remain same. Just more integrated and flaw of Utility dropdown gone.

UI modernization is not an easy task. However, most participants agreed that Panels are the way to go. F5 and Chord Settings - specifically Rests, Shots, Holds and Pushes are in my view some of best candidates for exploded view Panels with all tracks in use visible. Current adaptation is flawed because of the "dropdown" menus for non-legacy tracks, so to make it right functional design would have to be changed for these.

RustySpoon# said " it doesn't mean that DAW features already in place should not be completed". I agree 100%. The DAW changes already in place seem to be well liked. You've already mentioned PG Music is onboard to making more changes to the DAW like features. My assumption is, and has been, that the changes will be made so the DAW like features will feel more complete to the end user.

I'd like to move this discussion to a new thread +++ Link to new thread +++ so this thread can remain on topic. You or I started a new topic with a link to your post above if that's okay with you.

@Rusty" fixing the existing flaw of the "utility" dropdown. ?

As a Band-in-a-Box customer, I've noticed that many creative software programs, like those for music, art, and video, use similar design ideas that make them easier to use. If Band-in-a-Box added more of these common features, it would be even more user-friendly for everyone. This way, it could keep its unique strengths while improving the user experience for a wider audience.

Here are some specific suggestions:
+ Panels instead of dialogue boxes.
+ Consistency in actions, mouse behaviors for navigating, cursors, navigations, and hotkeys across the entire application.
+ Drag and drop functionality wherever it makes sense.
+ Context menus that are specific to the next steps and various scenarios, such as timeline markings, timeline chords, generation regions, track header, track name, FX, routing, and the MP library being 100% in context to where you opened it (current track, type, instrument, genre, tempo, feel, etc.).
+ A UI that is OS-aware, recognizing light/dark preferences, DPI scaling, and providing crisp, sharp fonts at any resolution (less reliance on outdated graphics).
+Rock-solid performance, ensuring high quality and reliability in all functions.
+ Seamless integration with associated applications, including drag and drop and common file interchange.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

+1.

There are so many great ideas here and in so many other posts of other users, I remember posting so many of them from years n years n years ago. When these were said way back you were thought of as being crazy. Why are they doable now and weren't doable way back ? Maybe PG have decided to do a total crossplatform re-write after all ? in that case Hallelujah !

Yes, first let me rename the thread back to the original name. (done)
Yes, you and others have brought these ideas and others up many times in the past.
Is PGM serious about them?
Only PGM can answer that, thus my repeated request from PGM to let us know if they are currently discussing and planning to make any of the suggestions in the nearly 200 posts in their threads.

In the bar 5 window the drop down for the utility tracks should be changed to a slide bar to the right and only the tracks used should show and if say 15 tracks are a being used then the slide bar would allow access to them quickly.

One of the most powerful tools in BIAB, if not the most powerful is Partial Regeneration. (I strongly encourage those who don't know about it, try it)

Currently there are 3 issues that I would like to be addressed.

#1 There are two pop up dialogs, Modal and Non-modal. Combine the two to a non modal panel item (tab)

#2 When you generate a part of the track, lets say section somewhere in the middle - track gets semi-frozen. You can still do partial regenerations to segments on the left and the right but it will not pick up new changes in those. Proposition is to only semi-freeze the sections that went through partial regeneration process, leaving all other segments "unfrozen".

#3 Undo sort of works, but I would like to be able to save some regeneration variants that I thought were interesting, as you can lose regenerations and there is no good way to get them back. For example implement A,B,C variants so you can audition side by side and pick the one that fits better. This is important one and needs thorough discussion.

Totally agree! especially with #3 this is vital so as to not lose something that was good for something not as good. As far as #1 yeah simplicity if key to user workflow.

At the risk of further side tracking, there is a bug in partial gen. It does not work in repeat areas.

Back to the OP: Specific suggestions - Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and “other”
Let's talk about preferences.
BB preference area is massive! There are hundreds and hundreds of preferences grouped in tabs. They do follow the standad of grouping by tabs, but still a lot of time is spent hunting for somethings you r not sure of has an option. This is true in all software.

- Reaper gives you a search since it has close to a thousand options.
- Studio One has much less and puts them into tabs like BB but also has a wrench icon in many panels to is the options for that area. This this is handy as it follows your train of thought.
- BB also tends to mix options and next step actions together everywhere in menus.

SUGGESTION: Perhaps BB could adopt a standard of also consistently showing like a gear or wrench in each panel to cover the option for that are instead of mixing in context menus.

"Other" suggestion.
Regardless of whether mixer will be changed or not, I wish there would be a simple method for handling tracks in mixer, T.View or both:

Right Click>Copy (with content)
Right Click>Paste (with content)
Right Click > Delete (all goes bye bye)
Right Click > Duplicate (with content)

All in the root of Right Click menu.

+1

+1
This is at the heart of my post on “context menus” and up to this point no one has engaged with. In the track header copy would imply the content of track. If over a selected region of data wave or MIDI it means copy that section of data. As far as root of menu, yes the top 10 things need to be one click away.
Context menus need to be pure context to where your mouse is, smart showing the last commands you did at top, and move the plethora of options to a dedicated option button for that process topic.
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=840885#Post840885

Despite being an off-and-on user of BIAB for more than 30 years, I only just realized how important it is to set the Key of your song in the top header next to Tempo if it is not in the key of C.

If you don't, BIAB will hijack your chords and change what you hear, thinking you are playing in the key of C.

I would suggest that PGMusic quickly figures out the key of your song by the chords you start typing (not difficult at all to do this) and adjusts the Key at the top of the header to match this.

That would be the optimal solution to this problem.

If the programmers can't figure out how to do this, I would recommend that by default, when a user starts to enter their first chord(s) to a song (that's not in C) a pop-up comes up reminding them to change the Key of the song from C to their new key, unless they turn off this default acknowledgment setting.

While the idea is a nice concept the reality is how will the concept handle mixed content in this all or nothing concept? What about when a user only wants a portion of the content? Most RealTracks have audio and embedded MIDI in the form of RealCharts. Sometimes you want the audio, sometimes the midi and sometimes all. MIDI SuperTracks have MIDI and the audio output of a soft synth. Again, sometimes you want audio, sometimes midi and sometimes both.

Sorry if this has been already suggested, The ability to customize and rearrange the menus to the user's liking would be fantastic. An example:

Also, being able to delete or rename songs and files directly from the songpicker is ,IMO, a must:

I did have a conversation with Peter three years ago about the 650+ menu options. At that point. They have been slowly subtle changes but he put custom menus on their todo list.

They are cool in Reaper but as it is not my primary DAW it leave them stock to match video training on YT.

The points made in the video are still very valid so knowing what the customer uses most of the time and putting them at the root would go a long way.

Other solutions are smart menus that always keep your last used menu options at the top automatically has also been suggested.

My consistency peeve is Select, Choose, Pick and menu items with different names that do the same thing. Always use the same term universally across the entire application.
The top common sense actions should always be at the root of a menu. Cut copy paste should just work no need to mention.

Note that contextual (right buttons) menus can also be customized (5'45'' on the video)

Thanks for all the great ideas here for the toolbars etc

Yes I certainly agree with this.

I notice Photoshop has a convert pixel picture to vector picture.
If you want to save are an Graphic Artist, AI can generate quality icons and save as SVG files so they are resizable.
Also, text should be OS font based so that it is clearer and potentially scale with the OS.

Top 10 point according to AI
Here's a summary of the top 10 suggestions for the Band-in-a-Box interface improvements, along with the reasons behind each one:

1. **Radio Bar**: Should be optional and hidden by default.
- *Why*: Reduces clutter and focuses on essential tools, creating a cleaner interface.

2. **Transport Bar**: Move to the bottom for more space and interactive buttons.
- *Why*: Provides more room for navigation and makes key controls more accessible.

3. **User-configurable Layouts**: Emphasize customizable layouts.
- *Why*: Allows users to tailor the interface to their preferences, enhancing flexibility and usability.

4. **Panel-based Interface**: Replace modal and non-modal windows with panels.
- *Why*: Creates a more cohesive and streamlined user experience, reducing the need to switch between windows.

5. **Touchscreen Navigation**: Implement compatibility for scrolling and zooming.
- *Why*: Enhances the modern user experience, especially for touch-enabled devices, making navigation smoother.

6. **Fixed Icons**: Icons for open/save and window controls should be fixed.
- *Why*: Provides consistency and easier access to essential functions.

7. **Simplified Menus**: Reduce the number of menu options.
- *Why*: Makes the interface more intuitive and user-friendly by simplifying navigation.

8. **Smart Tools**: Introduce tools that adapt based on context.
- *Why*: Improves editing efficiency by automatically providing the right tool for the task at hand.

9. **Flat/Neutral Button Design**: Replace large, gradient buttons with flat, text-based buttons.
- *Why*: Creates a cleaner and more modern appearance, making the interface less cluttered.

10. **Hover Hints**: Add pop-up hints for column headers in MultiPicker Library windows.
- *Why*: Provides clarity on the data in each column, enhancing usability.

These suggestions aim to modernize the Band-in-a-Box interface, making it more user-friendly, efficient, and customizable to better meet the needs of both new and experienced users.

I guess these are the AI engine's precis of what it's scavenged from these posts.
They do seem like fair precis.

Many people think that many of the existing toolbar buttons could/should be removed from the GUI. If we focus for a moment on the "File" area of the toolbar, what buttons do you think should be present? By that I mean buttons like Open, Save, Save as, Export, (Import?), Prev, Next. Some of these buttons are currently duplicated - for example on the normal toolbar screen there is a File-Open button to the left of the transport area, and there is also a File-Open on the File panel (tab) on the right-hand toolbar. Granted these aren't exactly the same since the File-Open button on the right has a drop-down menu with the 'Open Special' options. So I'm just curious, which of these buttons would you keep, and which would you discard in a 'default' toolbar configuration, and are there buttons that you think should be present that aren't?

Good question.
I think you are going to get two to three camps here.

SAVE In File menu for all apps
1) I personally learn 3 decades ago that Ctr + S saves so I do not need to waste space with save button.
2) Others may have been hitting your save button for years.
OPEN In File menu for all apps
1) Many DAWs have a dedicated song browser with tabs. PGM has the Song Tab. 80% of the time I use the OS file browser to go the directories in my organization so no button for me.
2) Others have used your Song Browser.

So, I would vote for let the user decide what buttons are in the tool bar.
You can default you what you have but let others remove them.

""File" area of the toolbar, what buttons do you think should be present?"

As I've requested in 2023, ideally the quad cluster by the current drop bay should be fully configurable. Quick access. For example, I would put MTP, Bar Settings, T.View, Chord options, Programmed CTRL+F8 shortcut for partial regen or anything else. I believe to future proof it that is the way to go. I mean, not only customizable with current icons, but custom shortcuts as buttons for any task.

Current Custom bar> File Menu. Save MIDI definitely needs to be there and menu redesigned to have all options on one screen. No pop ups. Clean. No 90's buttons. Compact. Ability to export only Chord Track(s) in that menu too, which is long due.

Kindly consider vector or high resolution images for icons as some are blurry.

I am tinkering with a DAW like program FL Studio. I must say customization is awesome. One beautiful program. But one thing, that I don't see often just done right. "Hint Panel" a small panel (movable / dockable). Whatever you point your mouse at, it tells you what it is and gives you a shortcut key. I like it significantly more than tool tips pop ups which I've used for years. This is so simple, yet so effective. Maybe something like this?