All I ask is that Vendors Use The same folder name for each catagory on their products.

24

Comments

  • Zev0Zev0 Posts: 7,038
    edited December 1969



    What NEVER made sense was vendors naming the folder in Figures "Jane's Sexy Dress," while naming the MAT folder "Club Outfit," and naming the product itself ... "Night on the Town."

    This.

    LOL double This.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 5,942
    edited December 1969



    What NEVER made sense was vendors naming the folder in Figures "Jane's Sexy Dress," while naming the MAT folder "Club Outfit," and naming the product itself ... "Night on the Town."

    This.

    Totally!

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    That's just it. It ISN'T a texture. It's a set of textures/material settings, so I never found "Pose" to be counter intuitive for applying material settings to an object. Textures are actually put in a Texture folder under the Runtime.

    It also made complete sense to me for lights to be in Lights, Cameras to be in Cameras ... etc. It's not at all different from filing taxes in a Taxes folder, utilities in a Utilities folder, rent/mortgage papers in a Rent/Mortgage folder. Marriage/Divorce papers in a Was I Crazy?!? folder. And ... so on.


    What NEVER made sense was vendors naming the folder in Figures "Jane's Sexy Dress," while naming the MAT folder "Club Outfit," and naming the product itself ... "Night on the Town."

    .
    Gedd said:
    I mean come on... calling a texture a 'pose' because of some underlying technical aspect? That is just unacceptable in a user interface imo.
    "It made sense to me" doesn't help anyone but the person making the comment unfortunately.

    Textures, materials... I hold to my opinion that the item that is modifying something should be a sub folder of the item it modifies. And, they are only under the runtime folder in a Poser material scenario, if they are (which version, I forget.) Even the runtime poser format puts different materials under different subfolders, with different versions in the different locations with no information other than an extension that the *user* has to research rather then determining what the user needs/wants upfront during the install. Then ofc there is the DAZ shaders, materials, whatever you want to call them... The point is, it is not intuitive to a new user.

    Which brings up another issue. I don't personally think there is an issue with the exe format of installers as much as I think the issue is that one can't save a default set of settings for a unified, comprehensive installer that gives one various options but then doesn't ask again unless they specify they *want* a different install then the default template.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    That's just it. It ISN'T a texture. It's a set of textures/material settings...

    You are correct here, and it actually goes to the heart of the matter. Even I fall back on calling things 'textures' and 'materials' when to someone not familiar with the technicalities of these terms are a bit confused. For them, it's 'skin' or 'fabric' or in the case of walls etc... maybe 'material' (as in stone, wood, glass...) The point is, if we are to empower more people to use this technology, we shouldn't 'require' them to understand technical nuances from the start. Let them decide to delve into that after they've been intrigued by the possibilities and have a reason to explore further. For some, they will be content to put stuff together without ever caring about the similarities and differences between a 'material' like wood or glass and a 'fabric' or 'skin.' My plea is, organize things the way a new person would expect, and use terms at least for the most basic usage ones that a new person would understand. Is that really too much to ask?

    Edit: actually, I might regret this if it happens because when someone new creates stunning images right off the bat when it took me a long time to learn how to do the same, it might be easy to feel cheated, but that is the cost sometime of progress.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Zev0Zev0 Posts: 7,038
    edited December 1969

    I'd just go as far as keeping the names the same for each folder. Going any deeper will just complicate things. The core issue is this. I use a hair, I want to apply a texture to it, I expect it to be in the same named folder. Thats it really.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    Zev0 said:
    I'd just go as far as keeping the names the same for each folder.

    You're too easy ;p

  • Velvet GoblinVelvet Goblin Posts: 532
    edited July 2012

    Zev0 said:
    I'd just go as far as keeping the names the same for each folder. Going any deeper will just complicate things. The core issue is this. I use a hair, I want to apply a texture to it, I expect it to be in the same named folder. Thats it really.

    Yes.


    I've read lots of other attempts to come up with organizational standards. But the end result is that no one could agree on anything.


    But this one idea is a very very simple change that I find hard to imagine arguing with. It's not asking much. It's asking very little, in fact. But it would be extremely helpful.

    Post edited by Velvet Goblin on
  • fixmypcmikefixmypcmike Posts: 19,563
    edited December 1969

    Zev0 said:
    I'd just go as far as keeping the names the same for each folder. Going any deeper will just complicate things. The core issue is this. I use a hair, I want to apply a texture to it, I expect it to be in the same named folder. Thats it really.

    Yes.


    I've read lots of other attempts to come up with organizational standards. But the end result is that no one could agree on anything.


    But this one idea is a very very simple change that I find hard to imagine arguing with. It's not asking much. It's asking very little, in fact. But it would be extremely helpful.

    Of course, then if you want to move all of the material presets, hand poses, etc. into a subfolder of the main folder, you need to rename them all anyway. And if you have a bunch of items that all go in the Poser pose library by default (e.g. morph injections, material presets, poses, fits, styles), you've either got to bunch them all together in one folder, name the folders differently, or have a folder with subfolders, another thing everyone disagrees on.

    Not that I disagree that having a standard, whether it's "name the folders in the different Poser libraries the same" or "always prefix the name with mat/pose/etc." or "always suffix the name etc.", would be helpful. But as has been seen over the years we've been arguing over this, no standard has ever stuck.

    Between wanting things to be comprehensible to newcomers, wanting to maintain legacy compatibility (moreso these days the legacy being what the long-term user is used to, rather than what the application is capable of understanding), and wanting to allow each user to customize things as they like, you've got a heck of a tangle.

    Using a database can solve a lot of problems -- one thing I like about the Categories introduced in DS2 is that I could effectively import my existing file & folder based organization directly into an identical structure of categories. The biggest shortcoming of the "Smart Content" in DS4, IMHO, is that there isn't an automated (or even fast) method of creating metadata.

    (Aside from, of course, the fact that different programs use different database schema and metadata systems).

  • Kendall SearsKendall Sears Posts: 2,995
    edited December 1969

    Zev0 said:
    I'd just go as far as keeping the names the same for each folder. Going any deeper will just complicate things. The core issue is this. I use a hair, I want to apply a texture to it, I expect it to be in the same named folder. Thats it really.

    Yes.


    I've read lots of other attempts to come up with organizational standards. But the end result is that no one could agree on anything.


    But this one idea is a very very simple change that I find hard to imagine arguing with. It's not asking much. It's asking very little, in fact. But it would be extremely helpful.

    Of course, then if you want to move all of the material presets, hand poses, etc. into a subfolder of the main folder, you need to rename them all anyway. And if you have a bunch of items that all go in the Poser pose library by default (e.g. morph injections, material presets, poses, fits, styles), you've either got to bunch them all together in one folder, name the folders differently, or have a folder with subfolders, another thing everyone disagrees on.

    Not that I disagree that having a standard, whether it's "name the folders in the different Poser libraries the same" or "always prefix the name with mat/pose/etc." or "always suffix the name etc.", would be helpful. But as has been seen over the years we've been arguing over this, no standard has ever stuck.

    Between wanting things to be comprehensible to newcomers, wanting to maintain legacy compatibility (moreso these days the legacy being what the long-term user is used to, rather than what the application is capable of understanding), and wanting to allow each user to customize things as they like, you've got a heck of a tangle.

    Using a database can solve a lot of problems -- one thing I like about the Categories introduced in DS2 is that I could effectively import my existing file & folder based organization directly into an identical structure of categories. The biggest shortcoming of the "Smart Content" in DS4, IMHO, is that there isn't an automated (or even fast) method of creating metadata.

    (Aside from, of course, the fact that different programs use different database schema and metadata systems).


    Yet.


    Kendall

  • murgatroyd314murgatroyd314 Posts: 1,426
    edited December 1969

    That's just it. It ISN'T a texture. It's a set of textures/material settings, so I never found "Pose" to be counter intuitive for applying material settings to an object. Textures are actually put in a Texture folder under the Runtime.
    Gedd said:
    I mean come on... calling a texture a 'pose' because of some underlying technical aspect? That is just unacceptable in a user interface imo.

    True, it's a material setting, rather than just a texture. However, here's the dictionary definition of the noun "pose", which is what your average new user thinks of when they see the folder name:
    "A particular way of standing or sitting, usually adopted for effect or in order to be photographed, painted, or drawn." (New Oxford American Dictionary)
    So, how exactly does putting material settings in the "Pose" folder make sense, again?

  • Velvet GoblinVelvet Goblin Posts: 532
    edited July 2012


    So, how exactly does putting material settings in the "Pose" folder make sense, again?

    It was a technical requirement because MAT poses were never intended by Poser engineers, they were merely discovered to work by users.

    In Poser 5, the material room was added in order to incorporate this functionality in its own tab. And all material changes should have taken place there.

    However, in order to maintain backwards compatibility with Poser 4, MAT poses continued to be made. Shortly after (or maybe at the same time) they became the main method of maintaining compatibility with Daz Studio.

    Had that compatibility never been a concern, Poser would have happily gone from version 5 onward with no MAT poses at all, since they have been unnecessary in every version of Poser since 5.

    Post edited by Velvet Goblin on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited December 1969

    If I had my druthers, DS would store EVERYTHING in the CMS and the Runtime would go away.


    Kendall

    I like Poser and DazStudio ...

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012


    So, how exactly does putting material settings in the "Pose" folder make sense, again?

    It was a technical requirement because MAT poses were never intended by Poser engineers, they were merely discovered to work by users.

    In Poser 5, the material room was added in order to incorporate this functionality in its own tab. And all material changes should have taken place there.

    However, in order to maintain backwards compatibility with Poser 4, MAT poses continued to be made. Shortly after (or maybe at the same time) they became the main method of maintaining compatibility with Daz Studio.

    Had that compatibility never been a concern, Poser would have happily gone from version 5 onward with no MAT poses at all, since they have been unnecessary in every version of Poser since 5.

    This explains how it 'made sense' but doesn't explain how, so long after it 'makes sense. I think we sometimes forget that having lived through something, strange things can make perfect sense to us but not to anyone who didn't live through something. Also, there is a time to regroup, rewrite and simplify.

    ' Having said that, thank you for going over the history of it so simply and to the point.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited July 2012

    Well - as Dazstudio still can't use mt5 or mc6 it is still sensible to use Mat poses if a somebody wants to create for Poser AND Dazstudio.

    Post edited by Kerya on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    So why load mt5 or mc6 in DAZ Studio, it can only lead to confusion, expecting a user to know what is/is not of *any* use to them without them having to do research and.. um, little to no documentation. Again, doesn't seem to make sense here. Then let's convolute it by placing materials in multiple locations, none of which are vagely related to the object they are supposed to effect to an 'undoctrinated' person.

    I understand how these things could eventually make sense to someone who's spent time learning this stuff. What I can't wrap my brain around is how *anyone* could think this could possibly make sense to anyone else who is new to this environment, or why this should even be a goal.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited December 1969

    Do you really know any software that is a bit more complicated than a text editor where people don't have to learn to use it?

    Honestly - I am VERY much with the originator of the thread to make all folder names consistent (it is what I am doing by installing to a temporary folder and renaming all the folders so there is one name for them all).

    But I am (see my signature) very much in favour of content being usable in more than one software.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Content being usable in more than one software package does not require a convoluted mess. This is where people get hung up. For some reason people have accepted the irrational assumption that these two go hand in hand.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Content being usable in more than one software package does not require a convoluted mess. This is where people get hung up. For some reason people have accepted the irrational assumption that these two go hand in hand.

    Well - tell me how you would set up clothes for V4 that are working in Dazstudio and Poser and are coming with some extra textures.
    Honest question!

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    Kerya said:
    Well - tell me how you would set up clothes for V4 that are working in Dazstudio and Poser and are coming with some extra textures.Honest question!

    And that is an excellent question. In fact, that is the question we should have been asking in the beginning.

    To further round out this question I would like to add a couple things. First, different people have different needs. For some it is important to have Poser and DAZ studio versions of something for various reasons. I definitely am *not* in favor of loosing access to any form for anyone that needs it. However, there are those that need only DAZ or only Poser, and futher, there are those that need only one at a given time but might discover later need the second. This can be accommodated without the current 'give them everything automatically and let them sort it out' approach. This approach only makes it easy for people who by the nature of needing both are the least in need of it being the default action. Therefore, having some other method where it is not the default but is available makes sense. This could be as easy as an installer that has a basic tab where one choses a simple basic install for a given product with an 'advanced' tab for other options, preferably with a 'template' feature that allows further installations to follow the same set of procedures (or even multiple templates to choose from for those with multiple installation configurations.) Or, it could be where the resources are available for alternate installations similar to template files for UV maps. Or... there could be a method I haven't thought of that would work better but would provide a simple basic install with all of the functionality the 'advanced' user might want. The point is, the current system caters to the 'advanced user' who doesn't need such hand-holding rather than the basic user who does. Most people don't need the various Poser materials if it comes with DAZ materials if they are working in DAZ for instance. Poser versions of objects in the poser subfolder structure instead of a DAZ version for simple objects... why? Yes I understand it might work better to access the base obj rather then export an obj (haven't tested this thoroughly yet) But again, why clutter someone's HD if they *never* will use this. While it might be impractical to do away with the Poser folder structure in DAZ at the moment for those that would rather not see it... reducing it's footprint would go a long way to simplifying things, with the goal of eliminating it all-together *for anyone who doesn't want to work with Poser also.*

    I forgot the second thing, but...

    To answer the original question, If the vendor only bothers to make Poser materials, this should be clear in the sales page and further, it should be pared down for DAZ installs to just ones that will work in DAZ, with the option to get other materials as a resource download.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    I would even suggest the problem goes deeper than this. Without first addressing these issues, we cannot properly go forward in ways that DAZ software needs to it seems. Imagine a version of DAZ that allows simple saving/packaging/distribution of various textures, poses etc... Yes I know for some it is simple now, but I am referring to simple for a young person, for someone who is very artistic but technically challenged, etc... The current system requires too much of a technical mindset which will always limit creativity. Think of web pages when one had to hand code html or use very complicated software. Yes Dreamweaver isn't something the typical person picks up over a weekend and starts producing beautiful results, but there *are* packages out there where one can. This for instance: http://mysmithmicro.com/marcom/eblasts/macware/macflux/20120606/index-web.html

    It seems we should be striving for this level of ease in use so that more people can explore their creative side.

    I understand it might require a little extra effort on the part of content providers, but the benefit is a potentially much expanded user base and that seems a reasonable tradeoff.

  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited December 1969

    The different installers for different people sounds interesting.
    On the other hand, knowing a bit about psychology: how many people will install the "basic" tab if there is an "advanced" tab?
    Will they really forego something they paid for?

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    People go for simple, especially when they try complicated and discover it doesn't benefit them.

  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited December 1969

    That may be ...

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    It's like trying to sell everyone Photoshop when most people only need or want PS Elements (or less.) Or, like how I prefer Hexagon for doing modeling in at the moment even though I play in Blender, Maya, and 3DS Max. Hexagon does everything I am reasonably proficient at without throwing a ton of other things at me that while very useful to someone more proficient then me, is clutter otherwise that distracts one from getting anything done. Simple is good.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    In large scale software, like banking etc... It isn't the number of features that typically sells the software, it's how many clicks it takes to do the common repetitive tasks. When one does a single task a hundred times during the day, 3 clicks vs 5 make a big difference. This is an example of simplicity at it's finest, when a click or two can make or break a million dollar sale.

    In a related issue, how much does complicated install and usability issues affect overall sales? The number one issue with online sales is anything that complicates the process between decision and purchase. I would suggest that the followup usability is a close second.

    The goal should be software that is simple to the point that one doesn't *need* documentation for the fundamental tasks, much less have to do research.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 10,943
    edited December 1969

    Simple is good - but both are examples of low price/free = basic version versus high price = professional version.
    ;)

    Anyway: there are some examples where vendors are making a Poser version, a DS version and a Poser/DS bundle version. I don't know how good those are selling, to tell the truth. I tend to buy none of them ...

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Kerya said:
    Anyway: there are some examples where vendors are making a Poser version, a DS version and a Poser/DS bundle version. I don't know how good those are selling, to tell the truth. I tend to buy none of them ...

    These are examples of people trying to monetize different versions, and at a much higher price then the market will bear imo. If there is any charge for alternate versions, it would seem that it should be minimal. All this typically does is incur an additional cost to anyone who might want to extend the original product and by doing so increase sales of the original, so it seems self defeating.

    Simple is good - but both are examples of low price/free = basic version versus high price = professional version. ;)

    I think you missed a couple things. Banking software isn't low priced, the web page design software I mentioned is extremely functional, and I don't think DAZ is trying to compete with Maya or 3DS.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    Btw, anyone looking to do web page design on a Mac should look at that link.. the software looks very sweet. I haven't tried it personally as I do my web page design on Windows/linux primarily... but it looks very nice.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Another better example is probably the original Unix/Linux concept where things were simple tools made to play nice together and do what they did well. Blender unfortunately seems to have lost this as it is an example of a monolithic product and is a perfect example of the results of that approach. It is very hard to simplify the interface of something that does so many things. (Note: I love Blender, but am far from able to use it efficiently.)

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    I would like to thank everyone who has participated or is participating in this debate btw. It is the only way to explore possibilities and grow. While it is natural for one to try to put forth their view the best they can, I would not suggest that I am in fact any more correct in my view than anyone else here. All opinions are welcome and valid in a good debate. Plus, we should all hopefully reserve the right to change our opinion at any time. :)

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
Sign In or Register to comment.