Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] read it and drool
From: Scott McNab (sdm_AT_fractalgraphics.com.au)
Date: Mon Dec 04 2000 - 06:15:07 EET
Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> >It seems to violate nearly every GUI rule there is. Knobs never belong on
> >a GUI.
>
> Oh, and one other thing. These "annals of GUI shame" as well as "howto
> make a a great GUI" are all based on the idea that the users are
> computer users in general. Whether they are right or wrong, the
> designers of GUI's like Reason's are starting from a different
> premise: their users don't know much about computers, but they do know
> how to use an Ensoniq/Roland/Emu sampler. the lessons i can see at the
> isys site and in other similar catalogs of GUI design are all totally
> rooted in the idea of consistency and "meeting expectations" where the
> world view of the user is primarily informed by *other GUI's*. if
> that's not true (and its arguable whether it is or it isn't), then its
> quite possible that many (not all) of the "GUI rules" are simply not
> relevant. I don't think that the Ensoniq sampler UI is more than a 0.1
> on a scale of 0 to 10 for UI design, but man, people who know how to
> use that thing can zoom around it like crazy. If you were writing a
> GUI for *them* would you want it to pay attention to Windows/MacOS GUI
> "rules", or would you want it to work pretty like the Ensoniq ?
Yes, but the only reason users can move around the interface of most
hardware synths etc is because they have spent literally hours upon hours
learning how to navigate obscure menus and mentally associate meaning to
a miriad of parameter values by trial and error.
Users became familiar with these kinds of interface because they HAD to
due to hardware cost constraints for manufacturers of building more
complex UIs, not because they are inherently the best design.
A lot of synth related things map a LOT better to things that computers
are intrinsicly better suited to doing (think of parameter control curves,
envelope displays, etc). The argument that soft-synths should stay away
from traditional computer-style interface elements in favour of mimicking
existing hardware is closing the door on avenues for finding BETTER
interface solutions than already exist.
Granted, creating interfaces that resemble existing hardware will greatly
aid the transition of existing users who are already familiar with the
hardware (by capitalising on the time they have already spent learning to
use the hardware equivalent), but in the long run this same interface that
made it easy for them to get used to is going to become limiting to them
when compared to an interface that is designed around making the most of
the actual hardware (ie. monitor, mouse, keyboard). Not to mention it may
actually steepen the learning curve for users who are not already familiar
with the hardware equivalents.
I think the integration of different software components from different
vendors is going to become a MUCH bigger problem (sooner rather than later)
when users grow sick and tired of having a dozen different ways of twidding
parameters on their dozen different software synths/mixers/etc. Using a
standard UI for all these components would make this much easier to use
in the long run.
Anyway, back in my box I go :)
Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 04 2000 - 06:44:05 EET