Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 06:34:25AM -0700, Len Ovens wrote: > > > A knob is ok if it works similar. Knobs that insist that I touch the > > knob pointer and move that in a tiny arch to adjust and where the > > pointer flips from one end to the other if I make the wrong move are > > not easier to move on stage... > > That's just bad design. > I never understood that. Who would think that having to operate a circular knob by moving the mouse in a little circle is convenient? It's also a bit harder to implement. Is there some argument for it I am not aware of? Even if it's a bad argument? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
Hi eveyone Although I normally refrain from entering this kind of discussions, I just can help myself from entering this particular one :-) I think that the point that most of us are missing is that, prior to decide the features on a particular product (a software in the discussed cases), one needs to decide THE TARGET AUDIENCE of such product. I see myself dealing with this issue daily when working with the MOD and I imagine that any other product, be it gratis or paid, free or non-free, hardware or software, is no different in this issue. I personally believe that there is no such thing as "the perfect globally accepted set of features" but only the ones that are accepted by a particular group of users and thus the need to define the target audience before deciding on the features. That said, I think that eveyone is right in their arguments and the lack of concordance comes from the fact that each one is considering a different target audience. Computer users (and Linux users also for that matter) can be spread over an extensive spectrum that stretches from the "80 column monocolor terminal lover" to the "keyoard hater" and will surely disagree on whats is a good and what is a bad designed software in terms of user experience - the thing actually working or not is a totally different matter. Best wishes to everyone. Gianfranco Ceccolini The MOD Team 2015-04-23 7:47 GMT+02:00 Thijs van severen : > > Op 23-apr.-2015 00:14 schreef "Fons Adriaensen" : > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:43:11AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > > > > Just one little note here. Back in 2001, I read an article in the US > > > Keyboard magazine that made a strong case for stopping the use of > > > skuomorphic GUIs (knobs etc) for a variety of reasons. It wasn't > written by > > > a software developer, but a musician. He was bemoaning how limited > GUIs for > > > audio software were because of their attempt to present things that > look > > > like hardware controls. > > > > There are different grades of that of course. Chickenheads, screws, > > handles and ventilation holes in a plugin GUI just look silly IMHO. > > But an 'abstracted' version of a rotary control can make sense, it > > has some advantages over most alternatives. > > > > On the other extreme, I find the 'standard' widgets offered by > > most GUI toolkits completely useless on anything that is supposed > > to be 'technical' (including audio apps) rather than an office > > application. > > > > People writing 'GUI standards' and trying to force them on everyone > > should have a look at e.g. a modern 'glass cockpit'. > > We are not talking about someone that suddenly decided to make up there > own set rules and then tried to fore it upon us > We are talking about a group of people that conducted a study on a large > group of random users, and based on that study they defined a set of > guidelines for us to use ... or ignore > #freedom :-) > > I mean the real > > thing - Boeing or Airbus, not the Garmin etc. thingies used by sports > > pilots that look like (and probabaly are) Windows apps. > > > > This is a very complex environment. A large amount of information, > > often competing for attention, has to be displayed accurately and > > unambiguously, in a way that is comfortable to be viewed for hours > > on end, and that also remains functional in emergency situations > > that may require split-second decisions. A lot of research and > > effort has gone into designing these things. > > > > You won't find a single 'standard' widget on those displays. Nor > > skeuomorphic imitations of traditional flight instruments. The > > only thing that still looks a bit traditional would be the attitude > > indicator on the PFD, but even that will be a very abstract version > > of the old mechanical one. > > > > All of it is designed to be purely functional, no frills, no eye- > > candy. Even the MCDUs (the things on the central console that look > > like a calculator on steroids) have their own interface style and > > conventions that will be quite different from what you may expect. > > > > And that's not because this is a primitive, conservative, or 'ten > > years behind the state of the art' technology - these systems are > > among the most advanced you can find anywhere. > > > > The same, but probably less extreme, you'll find in almost all > > 'technical' environments where function is more important than > > looks or tradition. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > -- > > FA > > > > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. > > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris > > and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) > > > > ___ > > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
Gianfranco, Thanks for your comment. I wholeheartedly agree. Target audience is a super important question in these matters. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gianfranco Ceccolini < gianfra...@portalmod.com.br> wrote: > Hi eveyone > > Although I normally refrain from entering this kind of discussions, I just > can help myself from entering this particular one :-) > > I think that the point that most of us are missing is that, prior to > decide the features on a particular product (a software in the discussed > cases), one needs to decide THE TARGET AUDIENCE of such product. > > I see myself dealing with this issue daily when working with the MOD and I > imagine that any other product, be it gratis or paid, free or non-free, > hardware or software, is no different in this issue. > > I personally believe that there is no such thing as "the perfect globally > accepted set of features" but only the ones that are accepted by a > particular group of users and thus the need to define the target audience > before deciding on the features. > > That said, I think that eveyone is right in their arguments and the lack > of concordance comes from the fact that each one is considering a different > target audience. > > Computer users (and Linux users also for that matter) can be spread over > an extensive spectrum that stretches from the "80 column monocolor terminal > lover" to the "keyoard hater" and will surely disagree on whats is a good > and what is a bad designed software in terms of user experience - the > thing actually working or not is a totally different matter. > > Best wishes to everyone. > > Gianfranco Ceccolini > The MOD Team > > > 2015-04-23 7:47 GMT+02:00 Thijs van severen : > >> >> Op 23-apr.-2015 00:14 schreef "Fons Adriaensen" : >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:43:11AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: >> > >> > > Just one little note here. Back in 2001, I read an article in the US >> > > Keyboard magazine that made a strong case for stopping the use of >> > > skuomorphic GUIs (knobs etc) for a variety of reasons. It wasn't >> written by >> > > a software developer, but a musician. He was bemoaning how limited >> GUIs for >> > > audio software were because of their attempt to present things that >> look >> > > like hardware controls. >> > >> > There are different grades of that of course. Chickenheads, screws, >> > handles and ventilation holes in a plugin GUI just look silly IMHO. >> > But an 'abstracted' version of a rotary control can make sense, it >> > has some advantages over most alternatives. >> > >> > On the other extreme, I find the 'standard' widgets offered by >> > most GUI toolkits completely useless on anything that is supposed >> > to be 'technical' (including audio apps) rather than an office >> > application. >> > >> > People writing 'GUI standards' and trying to force them on everyone >> > should have a look at e.g. a modern 'glass cockpit'. >> >> We are not talking about someone that suddenly decided to make up there >> own set rules and then tried to fore it upon us >> We are talking about a group of people that conducted a study on a large >> group of random users, and based on that study they defined a set of >> guidelines for us to use ... or ignore >> #freedom :-) >> >> I mean the real >> > thing - Boeing or Airbus, not the Garmin etc. thingies used by sports >> > pilots that look like (and probabaly are) Windows apps. >> > >> > This is a very complex environment. A large amount of information, >> > often competing for attention, has to be displayed accurately and >> > unambiguously, in a way that is comfortable to be viewed for hours >> > on end, and that also remains functional in emergency situations >> > that may require split-second decisions. A lot of research and >> > effort has gone into designing these things. >> > >> > You won't find a single 'standard' widget on those displays. Nor >> > skeuomorphic imitations of traditional flight instruments. The >> > only thing that still looks a bit traditional would be the attitude >> > indicator on the PFD, but even that will be a very abstract version >> > of the old mechanical one. >> > >> > All of it is designed to be purely functional, no frills, no eye- >> > candy. Even the MCDUs (the things on the central console that look >> > like a calculator on steroids) have their own interface style and >> > conventions that will be quite different from what you may expect. >> > >> > And that's not because this is a primitive, conservative, or 'ten >> > years behind the state of the art' technology - these systems are >> > among the most advanced you can find anywhere. >> > >> > The same, but probably less extreme, you'll find in almost all >> > 'technical' environments where function is more important than >> > looks or tradition. >> > >> > >> > Ciao, >> > >> > -- >> > FA >> > >> > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. >> > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris >> > and hysterically in
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:50:06PM +0300, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Fons Adriaensen > wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 06:34:25AM -0700, Len Ovens wrote: > > > > > A knob is ok if it works similar. Knobs that insist that I touch the > > > knob pointer and move that in a tiny arch to adjust and where the > > > pointer flips from one end to the other if I make the wrong move are > > > not easier to move on stage... > > > > That's just bad design. > > > > I never understood that. Who would think that having to operate a circular > knob by moving the mouse in a little circle is convenient? It's also a bit > harder to implement. Is there some argument for it I am not aware of? Even > if it's a bad argument? I used to have that in nekobee but at some point (possibly not in a released version, possibly only in Gtk3) I switched to vertical movement. I really ought to dust that off. Maybe I'll make time next weekend, this weekend is a full of shite goth music and Landrover offroad contests :-D -- Gordonjcp MM0YEQ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On 23.04.2015 12:01, Gianfranco Ceccolini wrote: I think that the point that most of us are missing is that, prior to decide the features on a particular product (a software in the discussed cases), one needs to decide THE TARGET AUDIENCE of such product. There are cases where defining a target audience is possible and beneficial, sure. Once you allow a small number of distinct audiences, you get a little farther. For some generic and/or complex products, things get messy fast. Just think of possible audiences for Blender: game developers, hobby vertex pushers, 3d printed bunny enthusiasts, product designers, professional illustrators and 3d animation specialists (coffee logisticians, modelers, texture artists, rigging and animation artists ...) ... Even though you can expect conflicts and issues due to the sheer number of features, Blender can work for all of them. Note however, than some people think its unnecessarily strange and complicated, while others think it's basically sliced bread for 3D. Oustide of marketing, I think it's not that important if you can assume your typical user to be Granny Smith, Tom Broman or little Susie. Truly important are the tasks to be accomplished, the work environments and the frequency and duration of use. Guess how the last 2 points relate to the different impressions people have of Blender. Aside of all that, every single user being human has limited memory, a locus of attention easily pulled away by an important message ... or just a distraction, is better at recognizing than recalling, forms habits, is slowed down when having to consider options, ... and so on. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On 23.04.2015 11:50, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: Who would think that having to operate a circular knob by moving the mouse in a little circle is convenient? It's also a bit harder to implement. Is there some argument for it I am not aware of? Properly done radial knobs do not force you to move the pointer in a little circle, but allow you to increase the distance. This way, you get adjustable precision. In my own experience, this can work very well for parameters that have a huge range (i.e. _many_ steps) and control something sensitive to the smallest changes. One issue is the placement of the knob relative to the edges of the screen and what you do when the pointer (ignoring touch) reaches them. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
Hi *, Some good points, and interesting points of view. @Thijs van Severen: I completed various UX / UI modules during my undergrad - that, together with the most obvious lacks (IMO) of Linux Audio UX is what prompted my composing of that exact list. > Tracey Hytry wrote: > a brief splash screen gives me feedback > if the program is not working correctly debug it Yes - both very good points. The latter (crashing on open) is particularly important, because if no splash exists, users expect the app is broken. > Fons wrote: > Using a splash screen to fix that is at best a bandaid Agreed, it is not the ideal situation, but it is much improved over no indication of feedback. Although a power-user probably won't care much for a splash screen, to novice users it does provide "visibility of system status", #1 from Nielsens UX heuristics. > Paul Davis wrote: (about the GUI Lock feature) - nice touch, and certainly something to be concidered for any "live use" software - noted as important. No synth or DAW should bomb out on Ctrl^Q during recording / playback, perhaps even with a confirm dialog when RE Dial Interaction: @Vytautas Jančauskas - For on stage use, I concider anything except "slider" style interaction with dials completely useless. I propose to any project using "radial interaction" style widgets to switch to "slider style" interaction. If moving 4px can cause a value jump by 50%, it is not safe to interact with that dial during a performance. Gain knobs are common offenders here - particuarly in Distortion / FX plugins. "Slider" style interaction has no disadvantage in the on-stage usecase, hence any OpenAV software (and AVTK) have the slider style interaction. > Thorsten >> RE Blender UI: Its very complex yes - its also pretty cool in the features it provides. Hotkeys to hide and show parts of the UI are a nice touch for power users, and a lot of work and thinking has been put into the UI. I'm a fan - but I'm a long term Blender user, so I can't objectively comment on how UX freindly it is for novices.. >> Re Radial Dials: Is there a disadvantage to "slider" style interaction here? Set a middle rate of change, and allow the user to use various hotkeys to increase / decrease it? This avoids the "4px 50% jump" issue, which is IMO catastrophic for live-use. Cheers, -Harry -- http://www.openavproductions.com ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
Am 23.04.2015 um 13:49 schrieb Thorsten Wilms: On 23.04.2015 11:50, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: Who would think that having to operate a circular knob by moving the mouse in a little circle is convenient? It's also a bit harder to implement. Is there some argument for it I am not aware of? Properly done radial knobs do not force you to move the pointer in a little circle, but allow you to increase the distance. This way, you get adjustable precision. In my own experience, this can work very well for parameters that have a huge range (i.e. _many_ steps) and control something sensitive to the smallest changes. One issue is the placement of the knob relative to the edges of the screen and what you do when the pointer (ignoring touch) reaches them. I've made my first knobs with circular response, and was very pleased with the behave, like Thorsten points out, distance to the center is the key therefor. jump-to-mouse is a no-go therefor, but that's thru for any (audio) controller. However, most users complain about circular response, so we've changed it to linear behave. Today, I mostly use the scroll-wheal to change values, . . ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On 4/23/2015 2:10 PM, Hermann Meyer wrote: Am 23.04.2015 um 13:49 schrieb Thorsten Wilms: On 23.04.2015 11:50, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote: Who would think that having to operate a circular knob by moving the mouse in a little circle is convenient? It's also a bit harder to implement. Is there some argument for it I am not aware of? Properly done radial knobs do not force you to move the pointer in a little circle, but allow you to increase the distance. This way, you get adjustable precision. In my own experience, this can work very well for parameters that have a huge range (i.e. _many_ steps) and control something sensitive to the smallest changes. One thing that comes really handy here is using a modifier, like shift or ctrl that does micro-adjustments vs. regular adjustments. Ideally, when this is coupled with an editable number box, you get the best of both worlds. One issue is the placement of the knob relative to the edges of the screen and what you do when the pointer (ignoring touch) reaches them. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
One issue is the placement of the knob relative to the edges of the screen and what you do when the pointer (ignoring touch) reaches them. That is why being able to adjust with both horizontal and vertical movement is a plus. Take a look at zita-mu1 for an example. It is also important to continue watching the position of the mouse when it leaves the application window. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote: One thing that comes really handy here is using a modifier, like shift or ctrl that does micro-adjustments vs. regular adjustments. Ideally, when this is coupled with an editable number box, you get the best of both worlds. Yes that is helpful... but having a good adjustment rate in the first place is important for stage use when using two hands may not be possible. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On 23.04.2015 20:51, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote: > One thing that comes really handy here is using a modifier, like shift > or ctrl that does micro-adjustments vs. regular adjustments. Ideally, > when this is coupled with an editable number box, you get the best of > both worlds. Support for modifiers is nice as long as its configurable. Don't forget the WMs, they may be configured to respond to modifiers and mouse actions, too. e.g. I move windows (they're all borderless) around with ALT+MOUSEMOVE and resize them with CNTRL+MOUSEMOVE. Events intercepted by the WM thus won't reach the knob... ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 07:47:50AM +0200, Thijs van severen wrote: > > People writing 'GUI standards' and trying to force them on everyone > > should have a look at e.g. a modern 'glass cockpit'. > > We are not talking about someone that suddenly decided to make up there own > set rules and then tried to fore it upon us > We are talking about a group of people that conducted a study on a large > group of random users, and based on that study they defined a set of > guidelines for us to use ... or ignore And in the case I mentioned (flight deck displays and user interfaces) were are talking about *specialists* in ergonomics who have conducted a not one but a series of studies and experiments involving a large group of *expert* users and costing tons of money. And the result is quite different. So whom do you think I should believe ? During my lunch break today I'be been reading a number of UI design guidelines. Of course there is some truth in them. It would be rather difficult not to find out the value of consistency, of reasonable color schemes and layout etc. But *all* of them, without exception, seem to assume that the user is some ignorant nitwit, without any prior knowledge about the application domain and too lazy to learn, let alone read a manual or $GOD help us, configure the software he is trying to use. Or not actually use but just play around with it a bit. That type of user may and actually does exist, and that may be where the money (or fame) is, but it is *not* the type of user I'm writing for or even remotely interested in. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Thu, April 23, 2015 22:59, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > And in the case I mentioned (flight deck displays and user interfaces) > were are talking about *specialists* in ergonomics who have conducted a not > one but a series of studies and experiments involving a large group of > *expert* users and costing tons of money. And the result is > quite different. So whom do you think I should believe ? > > But *all* of them, without exception, seem to assume that the user > is some ignorant nitwit, without any prior knowledge about the application > domain and too lazy to learn, let alone read a manual or $GOD help us, > configure the software he is trying to use. Or not actually use but just > play around with it a bit. > > That type of user may and actually does exist, and that may be where > the money (or fame) is, but it is *not* the type of user I'm writing for or > even remotely interested in. Hi Fons, i mostly agree with your evaluation, especially good is the example of the purely functional cockpit. The only point i'd challenge is that "play around a bit" isn't useful. I even think if developers don't do it themselves, it's absolutely necessary that users do it. If you're too focused on stuff that should work, you won't find out all the stuff that doesn't. And finding that out in a non-playing around session isn't fun, so better play beforehand :) Regards Thomas ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
Op 23-apr.-2015 22:59 schreef "Fons Adriaensen" : > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 07:47:50AM +0200, Thijs van severen wrote: > > > > People writing 'GUI standards' and trying to force them on everyone > > > should have a look at e.g. a modern 'glass cockpit'. > > > > We are not talking about someone that suddenly decided to make up there own > > set rules and then tried to fore it upon us > > We are talking about a group of people that conducted a study on a large > > group of random users, and based on that study they defined a set of > > guidelines for us to use ... or ignore > > And in the case I mentioned (flight deck displays and user interfaces) > were are talking about *specialists* in ergonomics who have conducted > a not one but a series of studies and experiments involving a large > group of *expert* users and costing tons of money. If you are writing a softsynth that will be used by a pilot i guess you might want to use this approach If you want more people to be able to use it i sugest you dont. ;-) All kidding aside i think that Gianfranco nailed it when he was talking about target audience Grtz Thijs And the result is > quite different. So whom do you think I should believe ? > > During my lunch break today I'be been reading a number of UI design > guidelines. Of course there is some truth in them. It would be rather > difficult not to find out the value of consistency, of reasonable > color schemes and layout etc. > > But *all* of them, without exception, seem to assume that the user > is some ignorant nitwit, without any prior knowledge about the > application domain and too lazy to learn, let alone read a manual > or $GOD help us, configure the software he is trying to use. Or > not actually use but just play around with it a bit. > > That type of user may and actually does exist, and that may be where > the money (or fame) is, but it is *not* the type of user I'm writing > for or even remotely interested in. > > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris > and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Fri, April 24, 2015 07:58, Thijs van severen wrote: > Op 23-apr.-2015 22:59 schreef "Fons Adriaensen" : >> And in the case I mentioned (flight deck displays and user interfaces) >> were are talking about *specialists* in ergonomics who have conducted a >> not one but a series of studies and experiments involving a large group >> of *expert* users and costing tons of money. > > If you are writing a softsynth that will be used by a pilot i guess you > might want to use this approach If you want more people to be able to use > it i sugest you dont. ;-) All kidding aside i think that Gianfranco nailed > it when he was talking about target audience > these are two separate things.. knowing the audience certainly helps. ok, my target user only speaks spanish. well.. i don't speak. nothing gained. maybe a specialist needed? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] User eXperience in Linux Audio
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:58:09 +0200, Thijs van severen wrote: >If you are writing a softsynth that will be used by a pilot i guess you >might want to use this approach >If you want more people to be able to use it i sugest you dont. ;-) >All kidding aside i think that Gianfranco nailed it when he was talking >about target audience Concerning the GUI matter I absolutely agree with Fons. As a matter of fact, some eye candy GUIs even add useless knobs and sockets. That reminds me that I still have to report it as a bug against an iPad music application, that apart from this issue, is rather good. An overdrive is called amp and the GUI is an amp, with tubes behind cooling slots and "line in", "line out" and "aux" sockets. I expected that the sockets will open Audiobus or something else, but they are just eye candy. For good reasons you won't find faked functionality as eye candy in a cockpit and there's no sane reason to overload a GUI for music production with a carrousel airbrush appeal. Those GUIs with a carrousel airbrush appeal are not only confusing, unpractical and unprofessional, they also hurt my eyes. Btw. professional studio gear has a different design than consumer hifi gear. Handling hifi gear should be an adventure for the consumer. Handling studio gear should be self-explaining, clear, ergonomically, IOW allow a professional workflow. The design should be timelessly beautiful, pragmatical, perhaps more with a Bauhaus appeal than a carrousel airbrush appeal. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
