Smaller updates more often?

Dorico
21

As it turns out, my critical notes have offended some and they jumped on the bandwagon to flame me personally.
Some responses even turned into sermons with an almost religious nature to defend their “truth”.
That I find pathetic, because some of the things I’ve said have been twisted and mocked.

English is not my native language and I enjoy working with Dorico, just like most of you out there.
I don’t need to be lectured on how things work and what effort and time is being put into achieving a good product.
And if some of you find that I’m negative, you may ask yourself why you are in need for positive responses only.

I rest my case.

22

… it’s not the responses, it is the attitude …

23

It is this kind of morality that has turned society into a jungle; go figure!

24

Everybody, B-R-E-A-T-H-E, please.

Franklinspired apologised and explained, that English is not his first language. He may not have enough of a grasp of the idiomatic subtleties of this mish-mash of a language we call English. Let’s cut him some slack, man! :slight_smile:

25

And would you be German, by any chance? That comma separating the clauses in the first sentence suggests as much!

26

Franklinspired,
As I stated in my little rant, it was not directed at you personally. Your post just simply got me thinking about a larger trend I see across the forum as a whole. Nothing was mocked, and I can assure you, while I did reference the your preference for how releases should be issued, you are hardly the first or only person to voice such an opinion (or the opinion to the contrary). As others can well attest, similar comments (particularly at the beginning) have dotted around the forum for months. My point in juxtaposing all of those opposite opinions was to point to the fact that what one user wants another user directly opposes.

I don’t think there is an aversion to “negative” comments where appropriate. I can think in particular of one very detailed review posted by one new trial user who provided a fair number of detailed criticisms in a post that was a veritable tome. That said, it was a fabulous post and proved very thought-provoking. Daniel also responded, sometimes correcting the OP, sometimes acknowledging. Fair criticisms and suggestions for improvements are very much accepted and encouraged here. I read many people’s suggestions of how Dorico could operate better with amazement. There are many great ideas provided to the team by users all across the forum. If you’re suggesting a different way to do things, that is a tacit admission that there is a weakness of Dorico. That, in and of itself is not problematic.

Where things become difficult, are with comments such as,
“As Daniel wrote, you can’t please all the people all the time, but on the other hand it might have been a good idea to launch Dorico at a later date…We all payed for a decent product and initially it does not have to be perfect in every way, but sufficient enough for users who Steinberg is aiming at.”

At this point what does it matter since it was already released? This is just a retroactive chastisement. In my mind this doesn’t contribute to any positive conversation. As a point of fact, Dorico currently is sufficient for much of what I’m doing. Perfect? No. Sufficient? Yes. (And preferable to the alternative program at that.) It’s these type of statements I was hoping people would consider more carefully before posting. Perhaps the constructive thing to say would have been, “Well, the product was not as fully-developed as I expected when I purchased so, for what it is worth, I would find features X, Y, & Z as most beneficial to be implemented sooner than later as I cannot use Dorico to operate professionally until these features are implemented.”

All of that said, it’s an easy trap to fall into. I know that my wife has often corrected me that my “tone of voice” was a lot stronger than I realized or intended. As such I certainly did not presume any malice on the part of your post. And Kudos for being an active member on this forum with English as your second language. I also speak French but I can tell you right now that I’m not on French forums because I’m so rusty and would no-doubt struggle. Again, it was never meant as a personal attack. Your post simply made me reflect on the larger dynamic that is present in just about every single thread from one person or another.

27

And, with my reply I’m going to “bow out”. I do not mean or intend to be a vigilante police on this forum. Sorry if my replies offended you in any way.

28

I think that Mr. Franklinspired expressed himself on a very clear way. I understood perfectly what he tried to convey (English is my second language as well). He was very polite and correct.

I think there should be room for different opinions. A “rant” like that is very dictatorial of what can be expressed on this forum. One may do that on his own business (if he or she is the boss, a dictatorial one) but forums are open spaces where opinions should be anwsered by the person or team to whom the question is addressed. This forum is nobodies house but an open space. If anyone offends the owners of the forum, he or she will be kindly kick out, I am sure. The question was greatly answered by Daniel. All other commentators did not add any value. On the other hand they made this a bitter space, even taking the liberty of putting their own thoughts on Daniel’s mouth, which is very unfair to Daniel who is a very kind person.

Just let the Team and Daniel to answer the questions and do not make hard judgements on other’s questions and comments. Every one has the right to, politely, and in a correct manner, express him or herself.

No more “rants” please.

29

I believe when one person suggests that Doric’s Development Team is on the wrong track, others should be able to express a contrary opinion. Otherwise only those who disagree with the Team’s road map will be expressing their thoughts and might lead to a mistaken impression that no one supports the Team’s current plan. Those who support the way things are going should have an equal chance to express their views as those who want to lobby for their preferences to be met first.

30

Very well put Derrek.

31

No. :smiley:

“Old School” English is my first language.

32

Personally, I’d rather have bigger, meatier updates issued less frequently - a couple a year would do me fine. I don’t think there’s a lot to be gained by watching Dorico inch towards completion - I’d prefer to be surprised by a ton of stuff I wasn’t expecting.

JMO.

33

The thing is people are dependent of these stuff in their daily work, so waiting a couple of years isn’t always an option. This calls for workarounds or putting Dorico on hold, which can be frustrating. The OPs question about the balance between pushing new features when they are ready vs doing bigger updates is truly a valid question, but I trust the team to do what they think is best. I’m grateful and amazed by their honesty and openness!

I would like to encourage the team to keep on sharing as much as possible about what they are working on, when they plan to be done, and what’s to be done next. Not for the sake of curiosity, but for planning. I still have to judge for every project I do wether I can do it in Dorico, or if I need to use Sibelius. Not only depending on which features are there when the project start, but also wether they are coming with an update en route.

34

Anders said, “I still have to judge for every project I do wether I can do it in Dorico, or if I need to use Sibelius. Not only depending on which features are there when the project start, but also wether they are coming with an update en route.”

That’s my approach, too. Classroom assignments will be Dorico projects. Compositions, transcriptions and arrangements are Sibelius projects for the next little while.

When I get the opportunity to explore Dorico’s repeats and chord symbols, I’ll make a decision about which projects I’ll shift over.

35

(Generally addressed, not responding to any specific poster.)

This is where we all need to understand each other. There are completely different categories of users.

For those who find Dorico right now meets their minimum needs, terrific. But just because it does for you doesn’t mean it does for somebody else. It’s easy to be patient when your investment is paying off now, and all you’re waiting for is improvements. But for those whose minimum needs mean they must keep Dorico on hold and continue to primarily use other programs, it is harder to be patient.

As many have said, there has been transparency from the beginning that full functionality could not possibly be in place in version 1, and that future updates and new versions would address as much as they could as quickly as they could. But nobody (including Daniel, I suspect!), could predict what progress could be made on what specific features in what span of time. His team waded into waters that may have been charted, yet they could still only be seen from the surface. What rocks, what shallows, what sudden dropoffs, what eddies that existed were all hidden. No doubt some remain hidden.

Two things, I would think, leave the team with a challenging task of prioritization. First, the diversity of broad categories of users, from classroom to studio, from engravers to composers. Second, the sheer number of feature demands, each critical from the viewpoint of those who want it ASAP. One group thinks the others’ demands trivial, while it’s own demands are paramount.

Of course, everyone knows this. It is not news. But it should be acknowledged by those of us pleading for our needs, and it should temper our forum discussions. When we imply something is trivial, or less important, it’s best to take into account the needed additional words, “…for me and my tribe of users.”

Personally, I purchased Dorico the day it came out in October, 2016, but I cannot yet use it the way I had envisioned because of some features that have proven more difficult for the team to implement than I expected. In some cases there are workarounds, but they so disrupt my flow of composing that I inevitably go back to my previous software, even with some of it’s limitations that caused me to purchase Dorico in the first place. I’m hoping the imminent update will address some of these things and I can start using Dorico as I intended.

While we had broad outlines that things would not be fully functional at the outset, we didn’t really know specifics. In my case, some things I took for granted would be in the early versions are still not there. But that’s life, and I’m confident that Daniel is pursuing things on as many fronts as he can as quickly as he can. I might be able to start using Dorico as my initial composing tool in a few days, or I might not. It might be many more months. I don’t know.

All I know is, it’s helpful if we understand the other guy’s point of view. And I personally find it helpful to recognize that Daniel and his team are, after all, just people. Gifted people, people with their own vision doing their best to respond to their customer base, people with real lives. I for one am grateful for their work even if it hasn’t (yet!) directly benefited me as much as I’d hoped.

36

DaddyO,
You make too many great points for me to quote any part of your post without needing to quote the whole thing. Once again, I apologize for my rant earlier. I fear I probably wasn’t most sensitive to the users who are desperately waiting to use Dorico which currently can’t meet their basic needs. That creates a natural stress for any user in that situation that is unintentional and perhaps that’s what I failed to realize.

37

Don’t get this. Why is it harder to be patient? I can fully understand impatience from those who don’t have a fall-back position in the shape of other scoring software (although arguably they should have read up on it beforehand) - but from those who do? You have an alternative already in place, one that in all probability you’ve used for years.

FWIW I still spend 80% of my time on Product A (or is it B?). I’m hoping that with repeats / chords that figure will come down to around 50%.

38

I was once on the receiving end of a very critical review of our company’s performance by a major customer, and one of their repeated criticisms was “You guys never have enough time to do something right, but you always find time to do it twice to fix it”.

Another notation package declared a change of policy to releasing updates in smaller increments, and more frequently. Leaving aside any differences in their interpretation of “more frequently” compared with what the customers might have thought it meant, the general result seems to be that a new release fixes a bug introduced in the previous release, and creates a new problem unrelated to the declared new features. And the new features might not be of any interest to a particular individual, of course. The result is that users can waste more time going sideways and backwards than moving forwards.

At least that’s one mistake that the Dorico team isn’t making, so far as one can judge from the new features added so far!

I don’t have any problem with that fact that in a ideal world I want everything I need RIGHT NOW. I also don’t have any problem with the fact that this is the real world, not an ideal one!

39

Just my two cents…

My experience with the frequently released rapid proto-type models has not been very good so far. I’d rather get releases that have been well tested. If I want to beta test (which I do for a number of products), I’ll sign up for the beta-team and install it on a system designated and properly set up for beta-testing and keeping documentation and test scripts for every little thing I’ve done.

I do believe that there may be cases where glaring show-stopping bugs can be overlooked during testing, and a patch should be made available ASAP, but when it comes to addling lists of features…allow time to let the testing teams attempt to do their jobs. Such teams don’t just hunt bugs, they also provide useful feed-back on usability, work-flow, documentation needs, etc…and these things need a little time to sink in before being finalized into an official release.

There are times, places, and markets for rapid prototyping models, but I don’t believe the consumer targeted flag-ship product is one of them. I think Steinberg is pretty smart on this, and they’ve learned from decades of experience…

40

I am also one who bought into Dorico from the beginning and who has been unable to find any real use for it yet. Because I need features that are not yet implemented in Dorico, and which are available in S-b-l–s, I continue to use that program. It is true that the afore-mentioned program was also severely restricted in scope at the beginning; but as there was no real competition, that problem was not so noticeably acute 18 years ago.

Although I have been using computers since before 1985, I cannot remember in detail the privations that we put up with back then; but they were legion. Dorico’s problem is that, despite their disadvantages, the older programs are mature and sophisticated and one cannot suddenly (even after a year or so) produce out of a hat a new program that does all that the older ones do and more, while also successfully avoiding the consequent restrictions of the older algorithms and creating a foresighted framework for unimpeded future development.

So I shall be patient, even though it would have been nice to have had first and second endings programmed earlier – maybe temporarily – to look OK with the promise of the addition of a playback function in due course.

David