Re: RGSG

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> 
> >the difference, of course, is that the former would make no sense for an
> >audio engineer. he doesn't deal in "files" and his daily work doesn't
> >break down well into individual units like that, since he works with
> >_collections_ of units (or "sessions") instead. the latter would be
> >better suited to this type of work. same math to calculate distance,
> >different unit of measure.
> 
> And exactly what prevents you from putting "new session" inside of file...a
> "metafile" is just another file, you know.  And that's ALL a project is,
> just another metafile, just another file, just another piece of guidance for
> I/O.

This bandstanding is getting very old.  Dan, the point we have
been _trying_ to make to you is that the user will understand the
interface better if it talks the user's language.  That's it. 
That's the whole point.  No one is denying that data can almost
always be thought of as a file or virtual file, given a
flexible-enough file metaphor.  That part of the argument is
immaterial.  You keep trying to re-prove it, and we keep trying
to tell you that we understand already.

I'll say it again.  "Session" is more intuitive to an audio
engineer than "File".  Both menus will potentially do the exact
same thing.  The only difference is that the title in the menu
bar will have different letters in it.  The "Session" menu _IS_
the "File" menu.

While it's true that you could argue that everything is
ultimately attributable to a file somewhere, the flat out point
is, the user does not care.  The user wants an interface that is
easier for him/her to understand.  "File" is generic, universal,
while "Session" is specific and clear.

So tell me, how is "File->Open" more clear to the audio engineer
than "Session->Open" is?

John