Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] read it and drool
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon Dec 04 2000 - 06:25:40 EET
>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.
Fair point. I would have made it myself, but forgot to :)
>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.
Well, I think that the path I'd like to see happen is that we start
out with h/w-imitating UI's which then evolve into something better. I
say this because:
>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.
so, you think that any of the UI paradigm(s?) exemplified by Windows,
MacOS, BeOS, NeXTStep or anyone else is actually *good* for this kind
of thing ? i know that *i* don't. those UI's simply don't deal well
with the notion of 20 parameters on screen at once and all being
controlled at the same time (or as close to it as the input device(s)
allow for). curves can sometimes help that (as for EQ), but often
not.
sure, i think that sticking to the h/w models is incredibly limiting
and a bad idea in the long run. but i'd much rather get those people
who are h/w-literate into the computer realm and then get both their
feedback and their encouragement as we develop better ways of using
computers for this stuff.
BTW, its not clear to me that, for instance, parametric EQ's are
easier to use when you give the user the response curve and allow them
to play with it as a curve. the mackie d8b has this, and although
initially it seems like a nice idea, the big wins don't seem to me to
come from the places you'd expect. its much easier to just turn up the
associated numeric display for the 5kHz band than it is to play with
the graph. but grab the low end of the graph, yank it up to maximum
gain, then move the mouse right and left to sweep this max-gain point
across the spectrum - now thats cool.
but .... i'd also *much* rather see some real apps for linx that could
benefit from great UI design than a discussion about what is currently
most vaporware right now. and that was really my whole point about reason.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 04 2000 - 07:48:22 EET