On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:05:36 +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote: Right, its not like protools has the same look+feel as logic, and with good reason. Just like ardour doesnt have the same look+feel as rosegarden. Thats the programmers problem :) If you provide the graphics in a general, and usable way (ideally with 'source'), its thier problem how they get them to work in thier preferred UI toolkit. - Steve

On Friday 11 Jun 2004 11:39 am, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: While I think you're right about this over-optimistic marketing of creative software, I think you should beware of excusing poor usability on the basis that what the software does is complex. Real instruments typically have a technique that's difficult to approach at all, as well as being hard to make really good music with: software is also hard to make really good music with, but that's not an excuse for allowing it to be difficult to approach at all. There's nothing in your metaphor that would excuse, for example, making your file selector hard to use or your sliders work differently from everyone else's. I find analogies along the lines of "violins are hard to learn, so it's reasonable for software be hard to learn too" or "cars need training to drive, so why do you expect to use software without even reading the manual?" troubling. (Actually I find analogies between software and cars troubling altogether, but don't get me started on that.) An advantage of software over violins is that software is generally open to improvements in usability without altering its real function, while a violin is not. If software was as hard to use today as it was forty years ago, obviously few people would consider making music with it at all; I simply don't believe that you can disassociate usability and creativity completely. (I think there are arguments for making things hard to use and learn that I could find quite compelling. A comparison with real-world objects doesn't seem enough, though.) Chris

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:59:41PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: My slider design might tell you that I'm not aiming at what I'm used to (which would be a problem anyway, as I use Windows and Linux (gnome/KDE) and sometimes Mac). I try not to blindly copy, but to learn from various uis and to think outside the box a bit. To not mess up the overall consistency? It should at least be the last option. Totaly different behaviour on the same gesture can be very confusing. For example the 3d app Blender uses rightclick for selection and left for placing a 3d cursor. Makes me try to select with leftclick in Blender when i havn't used it for a while. And after using Blender I often find myself trying to slect in a file manager with rightclick. It's an extreme example, but should make clear that having to do a mental switch can be very problematic. Usability != dumbing down, but restrictions can help with creativity, something I learned after switching from just a workstation keyboard to a pc solution. Having many different apps also means that some can concentrate on rather common things, while others provide more freedom. I like modular synths, but they can be counter productive, making you fiddle around, while the goal might be easily achievable with a fixed system. --- Thorsten Wilms

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: I wasn't refering to anyone specialy, but there were several instances of quite agressive tone around here, and it helps no one. I guess the word is misused and misunderstood quite often. I think a nice and useful definition is this one: - Effectivity - Efficiency - User satisfaction The fact that users are total noobs only once lowers the need for easy learnability. In many cases allowing efficient use is more important. But having to learn various means to reach the same goal is bad (at least if there are no clear advantages to each variation). The maybe most central aspect of usability, consistency, is not only good for having to learn stuff only once, but also allows habituation: subconcious handling, so full attention can go to the actual task at hand. One can perform several tasks at once if they are automated/subconcious, but concious attention can only go to one thing at any time. Therfore good ui is careful not to distract the user's attention and tries to step into the background as far as possible. As user of professional audio, graphics and 3d apps ... do I need to say more? I'm not in it for the money (allthough I might put gui work in my portfolio), I'm quite idealistic about human-computer interaction, as it is a important aspect of my life. I'm against dumbing down, but much for making things as simple as possible, but not simpler. Or by another way, there must be a clear advantage for every complication. Any complexity should bring possibilties, not just confusion. Differences coming from functionality are not the problem. But having to deal with various ways how knobs react, scales are implemented, pulldown menus behave and so on doesn't bring an advantage to anyone. There would be still much space for differences in concept and behaviour untouched by unification on widget level (and always room for totaly new widgets, if they make sense in a special case). Why do you think I might have some strange ideas that would give asking such questions to me any sense? Oh, and: No! Interface aspects that allow special control/expression/results can of course not be replaced by ones that do not have such characteristics. But a volume slider is a volume slider, and there's more to be gained than lost by standardizing such things. Different interfaces for different results. But please not different interfaces for the same results without specific advantages (besides experimentation). The comparison to physical musical instruments is rather lacking, but it would be great to have software that actualy feels like one. What's wrong with the 'attitude' of liking to have highest usability for concentrating on getting work done / transforming inspiration into music with least obstacles? And in many varying details in guis I don't see a 'flavour', but rather not knowing better / random decisions. Bad wording on my side. I mean the ability to achieve more and better things by working together. I did not say that you would have to be interested in anything, and I'm not about world domination or just copying commercial stuff (should be left behind in the dust in all aspects :) I don't rant, I rather use 'should', not 'must'. No bad word about this list / the community from me. I don't want to push people around (actual I could only try and fail, it's funny how marketing was mentioned in a mail being an example how not to do it). I would like to see more cooperation, and I offer to bring my time and skills in. --- Thorsten Wilms