Modular Architecture: Risks

Question

Early in the public beta program, I was of the opinion that LR's modular architecture would turn out to be one of those thing that is developer-friendly, but user-hostile. Frequently, I'd find that a tool or bit of information I was expecting to be immediately available was suddenly missing, 'cause I was in the wrong module. Usually this was a Library Module feature missing from the Development Module, or vice versa.
This issue has abated as the product has developed, and has probably abated more in v1.0 (which I haven't used yet). But I still worry that this architecture, for all it's benefits, is inevitably destined to impose limitations on usability.
Here's an example from Beta 4.1:
Say you're going through and rating a bunch of candids shot in a mixed light situation, where for each image you need to block in white balance in order to judge the image, and where WB might be different for each image. The efficient tool you want to use here is the White Balance Selector from the Develop Module (even more so in v1 with the new preview feature). So you go to the Develop module, moving through the images, quick WB, quick rating them with "[" and "]". Only you can't SEE the ratings. they're not displayed anywhere in the Develop view. Not in the content area. Not in the toolbar. Not in the filmstrip.
The obvious solution is to either a) add the White Balance Selector tool to Quick Develop, or b) add rating icons to the filmstrip thumbs and in the Develop content area (or toolbar). Fundamentally, you're forced to replicate features between modules, which is, to some extent, defeating the purpose of the modular structure.
Compare that to Aperture's non-modal interface, where you can enable tools and panels individually in multiple combinations and arrangements.
Just food for thought. I prefer LR for a number of reasons (and am in the process of consolidating old Aperture shoots to LR). But I'm just saying I think there is a downside to the modular architecture.
Tim Wilson
Studio/lab

Answer 1

I prefer to see all those settings in context, rather than have to check the filter setting to know what I'm looking at. Say I'm developing a 3-star pick and see a problem and want to check related images that may have other ratings. I want to glance down to the filmstrip and see if there are other 3-star or 2-star images nearby, and which ones are 3 and which are 2. Shouldn't have to go fiddling with filters to do that.
In Aperture, the star ratings are shown with the image everywhere in the program (unless you turn them off). When you're bouncing around looking at a lot of similar images, that immediate, intuitive, qualitative identification becomes a very useful thing.
Tim Wilson
Studio/lab