On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:59, Andy Larsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ... And Sherrod, it's not just about not wanting to know a second way to do it. It's about workflow, time, and hassle.
I understand... everyone has a unique perspective based on their workflow. I actually really *do* recognize that some tools are better for certain workflows, and no one single solution is going to always be best for everyone -- be it an operating system, software program, hammer, etc.
In case it wasn't obvious from the smiley, there was a bit of tongue-in-cheek-iness to my prior quip...
> But from a radio perspective...let's say I have a few files every day that I need to open, then edit, then re-save. Let's say we might use the same file names every day. (Don't know anyone who does that, of course...)
> Audacity: Choose Export from the file menu, click Save on the file format screen, click Yes when it warns you there is an existing file with the same name (duh), get to the screen to edit metadata tags, click OK, choose Close under the file menu, click No when it warns that you haven't saved the project.
Yes, you're correct -- that process is tedious in Audacity. (As a side note, you can save one of those steps by disabling the option to prompt for Metadata upon an export - look in the Preferences-Import/Export under "When exporting tracks to an audio file.) I use Audacity for simple one-track edits, so I do know that process.
> That's 3 mouse clicks for Audition, and 8 for Audacity.
> Isn't it just easier to hit the Save Icon or hit Ctrl+S?
Yes, it is. And as Mark concluded, Audacity may not be the best tool for what you're doing, or for you. And I don't have a problem with that.
But I *am* a big proponent of *everyone* always being open to learning new ways of doing things. I've worked with people who get set in their way of doing things even when it's extremely inefficient, "just because" it's what they know and are comfortable with doing.
If you'll entertain a brief illustrative story, the worst case of this I've seen was when I walked up to a radio traffic gal sitting down with a 4-5" stack of traffic logs in front of her with a full set of 10-15 various colored highlighters spread out. The traffic logs had different colors on each line (commercial spot), and she was manually searching for and marking each spot and tallying them on a chart to ensure the spots were played the correct number of times each day and daypart.
She did this process every day, every week... and it took her about 6-7 hours each day. (Talk about tedious and monotonous!)
When I went to her supervisor (the Traffic Department director) and explained that the commercial software scheduling software (for which we paid ~$20,000 each year to use and get support) was capable of doing this job *automatically* in about 5 minutes or less, she replied that her people were simply "too busy" to learn anything new. Besides, she argued, she didn't want to risk that person's job by automating the process.
This story should make any manager or department head (or executive) cringe. In this day and age of ruthless business competition (not to mention good stewardship with ever-decreasing resources in listener-supported ministries), we simply cannot afford lackadaisical ambivalence toward a "because I've always done it this way!" attitude.
From the end-user's perspective, change is rarely desired and is often difficult. It's a good measure of a good manager when they can get everyone on board with a major process change that will benefit the company.
But the good manager will also listen to his (or "her", for those politically-correct folks) employees who have really good explanations and evidence on what works best for their workflow. Sometimes, the simple tools are best, and a good employee can explain that well in a way that a manager should understand.
As we've discussed on this forum before, it's a good thing to always be learning. Employees can learn new ways of doing things (and they might be surprised by new capabilities that existing software/processes/tools have that the employee didn't know exist), and managers can (and should) learn and pass that knowledge on to their employees.
Ultimately, the manager's job is to equip their teams with the tools and resources they need to accomplish the work and to lead the department to success, and the employees should be active participants in reaching that same goal and making their manager look good for doing a great job leading the department. Part of that is being efficient, and that should be rewarded in any work environment, no matter what that efficiency looks like.