I’ve just see Andrew Price video at Blender Conference and I’m shocked. The lack of objectivity and politeness was outstanding, he is not undervaluing the developers work or calling stupids to the newbies, he is just opening a healthy discussion into an open community, he is trying to improve the software, I really don’t see the harm.
You can agree or not with his point of view but building a piece of software is a never end task, so speak about possible changes and ways to improve it is always good. Because he is just doing that, speaking and asking to the community what they think about it, he is not a developer, he can’t change the Blender’s UI tomorrow because he think is OK. He is a teacher, and he knows better than the developers what are the main issues when somebody try to learn Blender, so at least we have to understand his background and see he has a lot of experience to offer to the community and developers in that area.
I could understand a fanboy attitude in the audience but I never imagined the way Ton Roosendaal spoke today, he is the CEO, for God sake, he can’t act like a fanboy of his own piece of software… he spoke to the poor guy like “yeah, you are nobody to teach us who to do our work, we are the best and you are insulting our work, you know nothing”, and the attitude… is just incredible…
If they are not permeable to a healthy and polite discussion about this theme I wonder if some people would change the blender code by their own and make a new 3d software with some of Andrew’s ideas.
Would be funny see wich software would have more users.
What your expect when guy who fall in love of MS Office Ribbon panel keep trying to force Bledner developers to rewrite huge part of Blender to mimic that Excel? Patches welcome btw.
No, better users is the key.
Ohhh! the “fanboy” word again. I begin to think that those who accuse others of being fanboys, maybe they are fanboys.
I’m new to Blender and I really like the UI. However I have found some performance problems. If being new I’ve noticed these problems, I guess advanced users should be limited by these issues, or because there are new fundamental features remaining implement or improve.
If I had my way, changes in the UI would be pretty low on the list of priorities.
Just my opinion
you are a troll
XD
…I think Andrew needs more students for his video tutorials… XD
Yikes! Did you intend this to sound so mean and personal? You really think he “fell in love with the MS Office Ribbon” and is trying for "force* anyone to do anything? He is simply “proposing” changes and nobody should be ridiculed for that. People should be encouraged to think about how Blender could be improved, and all discussion should be encouraged, not discouraged with snide remarks.
Just My Opinion
I’m glad you have an opinion, but IMHO it really doesn’t belong in this part of the forum. I know I sound ornery, but I’m frankly tired of everyone feeling the need to chime in without anything actually constructive to say.
There are multiple UI threads. Keep the discussion in one of those. No need for everyone with an opinion to start a new thread.
In the beginning there was maya and 3ds. God saw that this was not good, so he created Blender. He spoke and so it was and it was good.
Blaspheeemers! =)
I have to admit it felt… akward when Ton scolded Andrew in front of everyone. He could have just said “hey guys, remember we’re always open to talk and discuss things” and then talk to him in private.
And then a few hours later, in the Brecht session on UI he pretty much agreed with Andrew Price’s UI team concept without seeming to give credit or acknowledgement on that front. Talk about a mixed message and reversal of stances. It does make it sound like he wanted to “put andrew in his place” in front of everyone, maybe not though, it just appeared that way to some extent.
why should he give credit? brecht was made in charge of the ui team long before Andrews talk. all i got from andrews session was a lot of back pedalling and some re iterating of things that are happening already as if it were somehow new and andrews idea. i realise he didnt intend it to sound that way, but it is how it sounded.
he basically says he didnt have a clue what he was talking about and apologised for acting gung ho about the whole proposal.
seriously, can we not just drop the whole " andrews UI" thing now and let the dev team do thier job?
Ton’s been talking very seriously about getting a UI Team together for a least six months now, long before Andrew picked up the topic. I think it was at least a couple of months ago that it was discussed that putting such a team together would happen after the conference.
So I think cause and effect might be different that it appears, because it only looks like the BF is only taking UI seriously now that it is being discussed so much.
But months ago the BF brought up the idea of a UI team and that 2.7 would probably contain UI changes and updated defaults. That is what prompted the increased UI discussion at BA.
That idea was discussed in the meeting notes last Sunday. Taken from the notes:
Ton Roosendaal mentions he had a meeting with Brecht van Lommel about all UI work the coming period. Brecht agreed on accepting the responsibility to coordinate/lead this, also to look into expanding the UI ‘owner’ team with more developers and designers.
Andrew jumped in so far over his head he’ll be pulling dead fish out of his pockets for months. I think Ton and crew have been very nice to him, or at least very tolerant. I wouldn’t have given him 5 seconds on that stage.
All the people who defend and rationalize his every move aren’t doing him any favors. He has a lot to learn about this dog-eat-dog world. Business-wise he may have jumped the shark by going off half-cocked like he did about this UI thing. It may have hurt his brand. He needs to get back to what made him successful and work harder than he ever has before at that or it could all slip away. I’d hate to see that happen. I like Andrew and wish nothing but the best for him.
-LP
Did I say he was responsible for that idea? NO. What I did say was acknowledgement. Theres a key difference here. The point I was making was that his “spanking” of andrew at the conference in front of all those people was on the premise that a “UI team” is bad. Then a few hours later he was all for the UI team with Brecht. Thus inconsistency. It makes it seem petty, like he needed some excuse to rag on andrew. I’m sure there are better aspects he could have gone after, but at the same time was the “public admonishment” really necessary?
As for A Price not knowing what hes talking about, well he probably knows more than you do on the UI front. Just following his progress would reveal he understood the goal and importance of UI and its design theory. Just knowing that doesnt mean knowing best how to execute it though. His UI proposal was, as he said prior to the Blender conference just a stab to get ideas flowing and that it wasnt going to be the last of it either. Offering ideas should not be taboo, and I think the reaction, and even near hatred shown, is not indicative of a good community. It almost says, if you have any sort of following or audience, shut up and dont contribute ideas.
Too much negative emotional responses have fueled the UI discussion and even the people contributing to that discussion, its stupid and counter productive.
Oh I know and I hope it didnt seem like I was implying otherwise.
My point, as shown above, was more about what was said in both talks with Price and Brecht, and the kind of double standard or conflicting responses. It seemed like certain individuals were trying to rag on Price regardless of what was presented.
Ton seemed to oppose, quite strongly, any concept of a UI team during andrew’s time on stage, yet flipped back to “yeah UI teams are great” with Brecht’s time on the stage. The irony regarding the lack of UI consistency in a two presentations with inconsistent responses is not lost on me. It is a bit unfortunate.
Pot, meet kettle!
And then a few hours later, in the Brecht session on UI he pretty much agreed with Andrew Price’s UI team concept without seeming to give credit or acknowledgement on that front. Talk about a mixed message and reversal of stances. It does make it sound like he wanted to “put andrew in his place” in front of everyone, maybe not though, it just appeared that way to some extent.
Totally agree with this, but like the rest of us, Ton is human after all and was acting somewhat emotionally, so we should cut him some slack. Any of us would act defensively if their life’s work was criticized. Just good to know that Andrew’s efforts, however it was perceived, has become the impetus for getting the UI on track and into Brecht’s very capable hands 
No, no worries. I was mostly just adding some background info in case anyone else wasn’t up to speed.
Offering ideas should not be taboo, and I think the reaction, and even near hatred shown, is not indicative of a good community.
I’m not trying to provoke anything here but this quote just seems to be inaccurate, yet from your regular posts on this topic I know you are very serious Sainthaven, so what did I miss in the video, because I thought people just politely told Andrew that in their experience the Blender UI did not pose much of an obstacle. (Except for the guy that said he didn’t know how to tell someone to get the splash screen off. Still shaking my head about that one.)
I’m not. I think it is perfectly natural to assume that a large shadowed window in front of the program is modal. These types of windows always require acknowledgement in some way, so you must answer a question or click “okay”, “cancel”, or a little “x” in the top corner before you can proceed. Take away those things and I’m not surprised some people would be confused.
Click in the top half of that window and it goes away. Click on the bottom-left quarter and your browser launches but the dialog does not close. Click in the bottom right quarter (empty since recent will be have nothing) and nothing happens and the dialog does not close.