Reference Guide

[filosofem]

Would you like to see more use-case examples, definitions for technical terms, or screen shots?
Personally I find that the 'handholding' in Pro Tools software can be eradicated by the implementation of use-case examples, joining the dots if you will. The technical definitions are somewhat adequate however two technical feature definitions doesn't illustrate it's application within the Pro Tools environment. One must still put two and two together.







filosofem

[DTheone]

I like Illustrated screen shots so that I know i'm in the right ball park following along.

Use case examples are also beneficial; I just jumped into protools 8 and bought the updated for 8 101 official courseware. Besides the accelrated video's on elastic audio; I find myself scratching my head alot trying to apply it to my own stuff following the reference guide (pdf)

The ProTools 101 courseware should be your reference guide; the inclusion of the DVD and project files add great value and use case examples as well as great illustrations; THERE'S NOTHING ON ELASTIC AUDIO THOUGH :confused:

The combination of the reference guide; 101 courseware and accelerated videos (also the method 1 dvd) give you an all around good grasp of operating protools efficiently.

Ableton has this type of interactive instruction that guides you while live is opened; it's on their website; I think this is an awesome way of applying the reference guide; I believe sony adapted this method with Acid pro 7 too. Perhaps a startup of Protools 8 in reference mode would be the way to go; we have the option of starting up with suggested settings (untiltled, 24 tracks etc...) add interactive reference to that and now we're talking....

[filosofem]

The combination of the reference guide; 101 courseware and accelerated videos (also the method 1 dvd) give you an all around good grasp of operating protools efficiently.
...and a valid point too.

See, personally, this is where the lines of technical manuals and how to guides become blurred. The Pro Tools Reference Guide is a technical manual and not a how to guide, however, the introduction of application how to's is making the Reference Guide a blended source. Thus, how far does one go.

Perhaps, as a result, trying to find a technical definition without an application how to would be likened to finding a nail in a hay stack.

However, the application of feature sets and how to's has it's place in an all in one .pdf guide, after all this is the point. It is it's excution that is befuddled.

What is wrong with a Reference Guide with an expand/collapse tree structure how to guide incorporated? Technical definitions with an application how to expand link. Thus, illustrating application and common workflow.








filosofem

[dmlabuda]

As a Professional Software Documentation Specialist of more than 30 years, I am extremely disappointed in the Pro Tools Reference Guide. While I'm certain that you spent much time developing it and are understandably very proud of it, it is obvious to me that it was written with the goal of providing a Reference Guide and not of helping the user (most of whom will likely be Home Studio users). The most obvious missing piece is the lack of a glossary of terms. There is an obvious lack of planning as well that has resulted in poor document organization. When you first started this project the first questions on your mind should have been "Who are our users?" and "What do they want to do with Pro Tools?". As a songwriter and home studio user, I want to document and record my music. From your Pro Tools Training Video, I can certainly see that the capabilities I'm looking for are there. However, the Video does not go into sufficient detail to allow me to actually learn to do what I am seeing there. Hence the need for a good reference manual or online help program. When I attempt to use either of these tools, I get bogged down in a huge learning curve that does not need to be as exhaustive as it is at present. For instance, I can follow the video to the point of starting with a blank session and when I go to add my first track, I'm immediately faced with the problem of selecting either an Audio, Aux Input, Master Fader, MIDI, or Instrumental track. The problem is that I do not know what the Pro Tools definitions of those tracks are or what specific track I should select for what I intend to do. When I attempt to find out by looking in the reference guide, I am directed to Chapter 11 on page 12. After reading the description of your tracks, I'm still confused about which track to use. I found the definition of the Instrumental track especially confusing and I'm sure that I will be using this track a great deal. After guessing at a track, I am then expected to select either samples or ticks and I don't have any idea why I need to select one or which one I truly want. The organization of the reference guide is extremely poor because I spent way too much time trying to figure this one out. An Instrument could produce an audio rather than MIDI signal so, if it's audio only, am I better off selecting the Audio track and I wonder about that but, the reference guide says nothing about it. So, I'm faced with learning how to use Pro Tools by trial and error and when I'm finished I will have documented my own version of a reference guide that specifically has the details I need to know to record my music. That will likely take me a long time to figure out. I strongly suggest that you TEST your reference guide by hiring a few songwriters who are unfamiliar with Pro Tools and having them try to use it to record and document their music. They can then work with your developers and documenters and try to correct what you now have. One of the first things you will need to change is the organization of the reference guide. No one wants to start reading about a subject and after a paragraph or two of general explanation be referred to another chapter where it is discussed it in more detail. I'm spending way too much time trying to navigate around in the reference guide while attempting to find what I want to know. It all needs to be in one place. That is the definition of a reference guide. If you want to learn about Tracks, the section on Tracks should contain EVERYTHING you need to know without going off to another section or another book to get a complete picture. Just my 2-cents! If you want an interested songwriter to work on this project, maybe you should hire me.

[77pro]

[QUOTE=dmlabuda;1455363]....... it is obvious to me that it was written with the goal of providing a Reference Guide and not of helping the user .... QUOTE]

Hence the name......."Reference Guide".

Not "User Guide" , or " Pro Tools For Dummies" , or "Everything to get you Recording"....etc.

There are a ton of great resources out there for using protools..books, dvd's, youtube tutorials..you name it, it's out there. Bite size pieces of all the great features.

But the Reference Guide is the protool bible...tough sledding at times...but it's all there. I can't imagine how large it would be if they tried to make it anything else....

I'm thinking with your background you could put together some guides yourself...and profit from it at the same time. ;)

[flommer]

As a Professional Software Documentation Specialist of more than 30 years, I am extremely disappointed in the Pro Tools Reference Guide. While I'm certain that you spent much time developing it and are understandably very proud of it, it is obvious to me that it was written with the goal of providing a Reference Guide and not of helping the user (most of whom will likely be Home Studio users). The most obvious missing piece is the lack of a glossary of terms. There is an obvious lack of planning as well that has resulted in poor document organization. When you first started this project the first questions on your mind should have been "Who are our users?" and "What do they want to do with Pro Tools?". As a songwriter and home studio user, I want to document and record my music. From your Pro Tools Training Video, I can certainly see that the capabilities I'm looking for are there. However, the Video does not go into sufficient detail to allow me to actually learn to do what I am seeing there. Hence the need for a good reference manual or online help program. When I attempt to use either of these tools, I get bogged down in a huge learning curve that does not need to be as exhaustive as it is at present. For instance, I can follow the video to the point of starting with a blank session and when I go to add my first track, I'm immediately faced with the problem of selecting either an Audio, Aux Input, Master Fader, MIDI, or Instrumental track. The problem is that I do not know what the Pro Tools definitions of those tracks are or what specific track I should select for what I intend to do. When I attempt to find out by looking in the reference guide, I am directed to Chapter 11 on page 12. After reading the description of your tracks, I'm still confused about which track to use. I found the definition of the Instrumental track especially confusing and I'm sure that I will be using this track a great deal. After guessing at a track, I am then expected to select either samples or ticks and I don't have any idea why I need to select one or which one I truly want. The organization of the reference guide is extremely poor because I spent way too much time trying to figure this one out. An Instrument could produce an audio rather than MIDI signal so, if it's audio only, am I better off selecting the Audio track and I wonder about that but, the reference guide says nothing about it. So, I'm faced with learning how to use Pro Tools by trial and error and when I'm finished I will have documented my own version of a reference guide that specifically has the details I need to know to record my music. That will likely take me a long time to figure out. I strongly suggest that you TEST your reference guide by hiring a few songwriters who are unfamiliar with Pro Tools and having them try to use it to record and document their music. They can then work with your developers and documenters and try to correct what you now have. One of the first things you will need to change is the organization of the reference guide. No one wants to start reading about a subject and after a paragraph or two of general explanation be referred to another chapter where it is discussed it in more detail. I'm spending way too much time trying to navigate around in the reference guide while attempting to find what I want to know. It all needs to be in one place. That is the definition of a reference guide. If you want to learn about Tracks, the section on Tracks should contain EVERYTHING you need to know without going off to another section or another book to get a complete picture. Just my 2-cents! If you want an interested songwriter to work on this project, maybe you should hire me.

If your professional product has no line breaks, as per your post, then I don't think I would be interested....:p

[sunburst79]

If your professional product has no line breaks, as per your post, then I don't think I would be interested....:p

Ispentabout10minutestypingoutawittyanswer butdecidedtodeleteit.

ButIwasthinkingthesamethingasyou

[77pro]

Okay...well...you just lost 2 customers.

Maybe just do it for fun ;)


Russ said I was too sarcastic...I was trying to be nice:D

[flommer]

I am extremely disappointed in the Pro Tools Reference Guide. While I'm certain that you spent much time developing it and are understandably very proud of it, it is obvious to me that it was written with the goal of providing a Reference Guide

That was my favorite part...;)

[filosofem]

When you first started this project the first questions on your mind should have been "Who are our users?" and "What do they want to do with Pro Tools?".
See, what you require defines you as a user.

Departmental concepts, principles and operation, if you will, like Audio, MIDI and Video respectively are not spelt out from start to finish in the Pro Tools Reference Guide and to be fair, nor should they be.

You ask, "who are our users", lets rephrased that, who uses Pro Tools? Well, to cut to the chase, not just hobbyists or bedroom users, whom of which might expect a guide spelt out to them from start to finish but to be honest, I am that hobbyist, that bedroom user, however the collected relative knowledge thus far, Track types, when and where tracks are to be applied, don't need spelling out to me.

Pro Tools. Tools for professionals. Is just that. Pro Tools. I do not ask for a watered down spirit when I'm at the bar. I want the whole ball of wax, a double shot on the rocks. Sh*t we worked hard to join those relative dots. Scoured any resource at our disposal. That doesn't mean that it must be and to stop short from sounding hypocritical, operation explanations and when and where to apply them should have their place, it's just how.

So I ask you then how would you structure the Reference Guide without turning it into a hand holding affair?







filosofem

[Tbob]

I would love to see a reference guide that could actually be used as a reference. dmlabuda makes a great point that there should be a glossary of terms. In addition to said glossary, there should be some additional terms listed to clarify the Pro Tools terminology. For example, if I'm trying to figure out how to edit 'envelopes', it should be easy for me to figure out that they are called 'automation' in Pro Tools, instead of having to fish around for an indefinite amount of time reading various chapters.

I find stumbling through clunky documentation to find what I'm looking for very time-consuming, and makes me want to move to a more intuitive platform like Logic or Vegas. The power in Pro Tools is immense, and although I've been a home user for 5 years, I still have much to learn. I would love it if the next few years of learning more didn't have such a steep learning curve. Making it easier to learn with, say, a great reference book with pictures and examples, would undoubtedly bring in more base-level users.

As someone taking the Pro Tools certification courses, I'd also love to see more effort put in there to those training books: at the very least, editing (large numbers of typos and some incorrect information), and also a more comprehensive index and/or glossary. The 1.5-page index for a 254-page book is rather pathetic.

[filosofem]

All documentation can be found Win \Program Files\Digidesign and Mac /Applications/Digidesign.


filosofem

[pezking]

I would love to see a reference guide that could actually be used as a reference. dmlabuda makes a great point that there should be a glossary of terms. In addition to said glossary, there should be some additional terms listed to clarify the Pro Tools terminology. For example, if I'm trying to figure out how to edit 'envelopes', it should be easy for me to figure out that they are called 'automation' in Pro Tools, instead of having to fish around for an indefinite amount of time reading various chapters.

I find stumbling through clunky documentation to find what I'm looking for very time-consuming, and makes me want to move to a more intuitive platform like Logic or Vegas. The power in Pro Tools is immense, and although I've been a home user for 5 years, I still have much to learn. I would love it if the next few years of learning more didn't have such a steep learning curve. Making it easier to learn with, say, a great reference book with pictures and examples, would undoubtedly bring in more base-level users.

As someone taking the Pro Tools certification courses, I'd also love to see more effort put in there to those training books: at the very least, editing (large numbers of typos and some incorrect information), and also a more comprehensive index and/or glossary. The 1.5-page index for a 254-page book is rather pathetic.

It seems to me what you are wanting is a tutorial book - not a reference book. The reference book as it is, lets you know how a certain feature works and what parameters do what etc. I find it very quick to find what I need by searching through the PDF. Provided you know how to use your PDF viewer it's pretty fast.

I would also suggest your use of the term "envelope" is somewhat wrong, and that the term "automation" is a much more universally used term; so the fact that Pro Tools doesn't call it an envelope isn't that much of a surprise.

Finally I couldn't agree with you more about the Pro Tools Certification books. However I think they laid off a lot of the people in that department, and it won't get better any time soon.

[flommer]

Admittedly, I haven't had hands on Logic for a long time...

But I don't recall it ever being described as "intuitive"...