Sounds to me like it is a point of view issue - rather than a bug.

When I read what you wrote...it seems very logical that if you have 3 chapter pointe, make a scence select (that points to the chapters)...then go back and add a chapter BEFORE one of the chapters you previously had....the new chapter would become (say) chapter 3....and anything that you previously had pointing to chapter 3 either won't work or points to the new chapter 3.

But....like I said, it's a point of view thing. Glass half empty / half full type of thing.

I can see the validity to the though that the 'links' should be relative and move, change, add, substract accordingly. But because they don't currently do that I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of bug.

Personally, I try never to create the scene select until I'm done adding all my chapters. And - I always put in a bunch of chapter points that I never use in the scene select (just so my user can 'next' button through the presentation if they want).

But thanks for the heads up on this one. It's good to know.

Not to be contentious, but it has to be a bug, because the way it works now will NEVER be what anyone wants. When you create a menu item, it links to a specific video frame in your project. If you then decide to add another chapter and this act causes every single menu item to now point to another location in the project. Add a second new chapter, and all the references change again. This can NEVER be what anyone wants.

I realize that some people have developed a workflow where they may not encounter this. However, I will GUARANTEE that someday every one of them will find a reason to want to add a chapter stop at the last minute. At that point, look out ...

I'd have to agree with your point of view that it's a matter of point of view. ;)

It's true that under most circumstances, one would want chapter links to point to a static point in the video (if I tried, I bet I could think of a counter circumstance). However: the properties window does list Scene Selection buttons as linking to chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, etc. And if you insert a chapter between two existing chapters, you have changed all the numbers following it.

DVDA hasn't done something that it shouldn't do, it simply hasn't done something that (maybe) it should do. ;)

Rob

I can't believe that people are defending the indefensible. Yes, I can understand the LOGIC of how this feature works, but the point is that how it works will NEVER be what you actually want to have happen. Believe me, when it actually happens to you (and it will), you will suddenly "get religion" and understand why Sony needs to change this behavior.

Back when I actually managed development efforts, we used to talk about the "surprise factor." The basic idea is that a user should never be surprised by something the software did. Of course, since people have different backgrounds, training, and expectations, this objective can never be met 100% of the time. However, if a product does something that is NEVER going to be considered correct by ANY user, then it must be changed.

What both people defending DVDA have said is that they understand how it behaves. I understand it too. However, that is different than saying that they want it to behave that way, or that DVDA's existing behavior (i.e., moving all menu links subsequent to a chapter insert) would be useful or would enhance their workflow. Instead, I contend that it will do nothing but cause problems, and will force every user to needlessly, manually update perhaps dozens of links each time they want to add a chapter. What good is that?

I have had this problem also, having to go back and make all the changes after adding a new chapter does take time. It seems there should be a way to simply add the chapter without changing the other chapter links.

I can't believe that people are defending the indefensible

Just because I can type text in my spreadsheet program - does not make Excel a word processor. Equal to this, just because I can use my word processor to make web pages does not make MS Word the web authoring application.

I'm glad that you can understand the LOGIC of how this feature works... because that's where the discussion should really end. It does what it does because that's what it does.

For lack of a better word to explain it - you link it to a specified spot. If you change what goes before it ... then you changed the link. Sure it would be nice if the feature would be dynamic instead of static - it's not.

I've run across this issue in the past - but sorry I guess the religion just passed me by because I didn't think that Sony needed to change the behavior - I modified my own behavior to deal with what the software can do.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things - I'm not sitting behind my computer churning out DVD after DVD so that if I have to reput in chapter points its going to totally mess up my day. If I ever get to a point where the software is causing me to loose time, energy and (more importantly) money...then I'll move on to Scenarist.

I don't see a problem with this issue.

Although I might not go as far as to characterize this as 'indefensible', I do agree with john on his point. I don't know if it would be a 'bug', but it might be an oversight on Sony's part. In any event, most people who author aren't mapping out their entire disc and menu layout/chapters/etc before authoring. Because of that, it is inevitable that many will want to add or subtract chapters. It's not an issue unless you have already created your buttons and links. Having to remap the entire menu because of the chapter marker change creates a whole lot of un-needed reworking. All of the major authoring apps in DVD-A's price point (or higher) behave as john would like it too, it just makes intuitive sense. That's why you see it in all the other apps.

Jim

I'm not sitting behind my computer churning out DVD after DVD so that if I have to reput in chapter points its going to totally mess up my day.

True enough -- my day isn't ruined either. However, I have managed design all my life, and if your design causes people to take more time to complete a task, or make that task more prone to errors, you change the design.

Also, in your spreadsheet, you COULD copy each formula, one cell at a time, and fix up all the references for each cell. How neat, however, that Dan Bricklin (Visicalc author) came up with the idea to do all that automatically. The whole purpose of the computer is to automate and threby eliminate repetitive repetitive tasks; its purpose is not to create new ones.

My grandpa who was a expert craftsman that worked on many of the ornate interiors of many of the premier buildings in dowtown Chicago during the 20's through 40's and could make plaser look like polished marble had some good advice:

Measure twice, cut once.

Very good advice. I think I heard that a time or two growing up.

>Measure twice, cut once.

Only when the downstream changes will be killed by the upstream changes. IOW, if a mistake upstream costs you 100 times downstream, you take the time upstream.

No longer true for software development, though, which is my area of expertise. There you get something working asap and put it in front of the user, then you iterate until happy. (If the developers can't handle this, they suck.) And it *should* not be true for software users.

John's right. Yes, everyone needs to modify their behavior now because of the issue, but the long-term answer is for Sony to modify the software so users don't need to modify their behavior.

If someone says they can get their DVD design right the first time...by "measuring twice".., then my hat is off to you. But software that forces this to be so, needs work.

I always get a kick how its ALWAYS the same few posters that come across like a bull elephant in a china shop and say this is the way its got to be BECAUSE that's the way I WANT IT, rant, rant, rant.

To begin with the subject title is misleading. No coaster. A coaster is when the software/hardware messes up and you have a UNPLAYABLE disc. That's isn't what happened.

When the USER screws-up (like happened to John) by not paying attention to what the software is doing that's a differnt story. That's why I made the measure twice, cut once comment.

People that rush to burn a disc WITHOUT FIRST CHECKING HOW ITS GOING TO PLAY have only themselves to blame when the end result is something other than they expected. Besides, if you can't wait, that's why they invented RE-Writeable DVD's!

Like I said, I always get a kick out of people that blame software for their mistakes when the software does X, Y, Z, when they think it should do X, Z Y.

The issue isn't if the software should do X or Y, rather KNOWING what the software DOES, then being smart enough to work around whatever limitations are there.

The issue isn't if the software should do X or Y, rather KNOWING what the software DOES, then being smart enough to work around whatever limitations are there.

Billyboy, you are absolutely correct. Software engineers should never change software to reduce the number of steps a user must take to finish a project. If the user can figure it out, then that is good enough, and the engineers should instead spend their time designing new features. And you are correct, the coaster is entirely my fault, just like it was my fault that when I did a duplex (two-sided) print of a twenty-one page document in Word and forgot to take out the first page of the stack when I re-inserted the stack into the printer to print the other side of each page. I therefore ended up with the back pages off by one page, and had to throw the whole thing out.

IT WAS MY FAULT! I admit it!

And because it was entirely my fault, I sure as heck wouldn't want to suggest to Microsoft (or Sony) a way in which they could improve their software to help other users from making such a mistake. I mean, what right do I have to do that? Why should they listen to a mere user? If other people make the same mistake, I say, let them! I figured it out, and they should be able to do the same. Plus, even though I will never make another coaster, I look forward to moving twenty menu links each time I decide to add a new chapter to an existing project. It sharpens my mind to do mindless, repetitive tasks every day, and I look forward to doing more of them.

I personally didn't find john's initial post a 'rant'. I thought it was a good suggestion. Just my opinion, but maybe that's ranting. I guess in the software world the old adage 'the customer is always right' should never apply.

Jim

John's posting history shows he has a habit of sometimes complaining about others "ranting" yet his rants apparently aren't "rants". Sorry, I see hypocricy.

There's a fine line between true software "bugs" and more correctly calling them "quirky features". Some people will find it necessary to bitch and moan, others simply shrug and get on with it.

If or not the "issue" John brought up is an intended "feature" designed to do what it does or a unintented consequence, I don't know. My point is John knows the proper method of bringing up such issues, yet when a bee gets in his bonnet he's among the first to complain in the forum. and use inflamaotry language like makes a coaster, beware.

Vegas and DVD Architect both have a few "quirky features". Every once in awhile you see some people go off the deep end finding fault, which amuses me to no end. I call it the Zippy syndrome, much to do about nothing. <wink>

Setting aside any prior history one may have with a particular poster, the content of the comment (and perhaps not the delivery), IMO, is valid. I wouldn't call it a 'bug', but I wouldn't call it a 'feature' either. DVD Studio Pro, ReelDVD, Encore, DVDWS, Impression Pro, etc. all behave as john would like DVD-A to in regards to chapter marks. The dvd market is highly competitive, and if one is trying to get others to migrate over to DVD-A(which I assume Sony would like to see), it would help if a 'feature' is not counterintuitive to what they have been accustomed to in other apps. Surely people will find a way to get around limitations, and the more loyal a particular user is to a product, the more they will put up with 'quirky features'. It all comes down really to three things when looking to buy an app like this--cost, feature set, and ease of use. If cost and feature set are a wash, then ease of use (including anticipating those users who haven't thought out every last link in their dvd before authoring) will win out.

Impression Pro was the first authoring app I used. It was very user-unfriendly, esp. the gyrations one had to go through in Photoshop to create menus. However, it was one of the only apps that offered multiple audio streams and web enabled buttons and the like. It had a very devout following from Minerva customers (before Pinnacle bought them out) who delighted in belittling new users who complained about Impression's at times difficult interface. If the 'new' user weren’t such a dolt they would actually realize how great the product was like the experts. That was an $8000 application that now sells for $199. Nothing was ever done to address legitimate requests of the user base who have since moved on to other apps that perhaps don't offer any more features (and cost a bit more), but are easier to use. Sometimes a company can learn by listening to more than just those who are enamored with them. I'm not condoning unabated bashing, but I think there are more than just john who would like to see this 'feature' changed.

I don't know john, and I don't know you--so I don't think I have a 'dog in this fight'. They're just my observations.


Jim