I did a search and can’t find a feature request for this so here goes…
The current GUI style looks very nice but has unfeasably narrow scroll bars which are difficult to grab without making a very deliberate slow mouse movement.
In the project window, Cubase 7.5 had a nice big chunky scroll bar. In Cubase 8, it’s not much wider than a strand of hair. If my monitor had a higher PPI, I doubt I’d be able to see it!
OK, perhaps a slight exageration there but I wanted to emphasise the point.
Scroll bars need to be designed for functionality not style and my view and others I have spoken to is that they are too difficult to grab hold of as they are too thin.
Please can this be borne in mind for any future GUI designs - functionality first, big scroll bars over narrow vogue-like scroll bars.
But going to the other post and giving it a +1 will bring it and all its responses back to the top and show the support for doing this. Having multiple threads requesting the same thing dilutes the perceived support for a request. A single thread with 30 responses is stronger than 3 threads with 10 each.
Yes, you’re right although having a new topic adds a fresh nag factor to the situation.
However, in reality, all this is moot. This forum is really a grafitti wall supplied to make the users feel more involved with the product life cycle. The chances of something here making it into the big time are slim and in the case of something obvious like the scroll bar size, you can be certain the beta testers would have raised this from the first build they got to test. By the time it went into beta though, the gui was probably locked down so changes, even if approved, might not have happened.
Steinberg have been round a long time. They know what they are doing and product features will exist on a roadmap that is developed in house. The features of the next two builds are probably decided already. This is just the way companies work, especially those who have deadlines to meet for product releases. When developers bend over backwards to accommodate each and every feature users request, the product ends up a jumbled mess. Reaper is a good example of this and I am concerned that Bitwig might follow the same path.
The sort of users who get to influence these features are big-name users who can put Cubase on the international map. So Eucon users get fixes and if film composer X says he wants a feature to do … whatever … that stands more chance than a bunch of users who’ve paid the money and are no more than a revenue source. It hardly matters how much noise is on this requests forum. If the feature is on the roadmap, it will be implemented.
So let’s not kid ourselves. We can post things here and that gives us a voice - that is precisely why I posted a few things the other day - but with 11 pages of requests to trawl through, analyse and pick out the suitable ones for implementation, that gives Steinberg a massive amount of work to do which is on top of what they already have with a development and release cycle that needs to be met for each release. Any company that works differently either has eccentric management that wont survive or huge funds in reserve that means they don’t need steady revenue and can play at fantasy-software-development.
The benefit of posting here is really personal - to get something off your chest.
