Re: [LAU] State of the art GUI

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:10 AM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote: I think the biggest thing is finding a balance between form and functionality. Often times, the form aspect gets left behind slightly in open source software, either due to lack of time, or lack of talent(Meaning programmers aren't always graphic designers which is perfectly fine). In some cases functionality is taken to an extreme at the expense of form, rather than finding a balance between them. I personally think Ardour suffers some from this on occasion for example, but I don't think that is much of a secret either. I am also perfectly fine to be disagreed with on this topic as well:) What do I mean by form? I mean not just doing basic straight primitive shapes because they are the easiest to program, often times subtle changes make things much more attractive to look at, but they are also the most difficult to do in a way that is subtle enough not to draw attention to itself. If overdone functionality itself can suffer. I am going to pick on Thorsten here slightly as I think this is his work, but I do want to state up front I have the uptmost respect for him and his work. To give an example I am fairly familiar with, take Ardour's fader strips. Possibly the most commonly requested thing to be upgraded in Ardour's appearance, it is unlikely to happen because the current design is exceedingly functional. The design goals included making it visually obvious that the entire fader could be clicked on to initiate the drag, instead of just the graphical representation of the fader knob that is so common(In Mixbus for example). My question on this however would be, is the balance of form and functionality maintained in this design. How much of a difference does that functional design provide to most users, vs how much of a difference does it make to have something that many people consider not very 'flashy' looking, which there is two parts of the latter half of that. The first part is how many users are just turned away from the get go, assuming that if time wasn't spent to make the interface look nice, then it is indicative that the software itself doesn't work nice. Sad to say this is factor for many people, they choose audio software based on the appearance, that topic is left to another thread, but it is a given. The second half of this is, once it is established that you can click anywhere on the fader, how much of a detractor is it to be working starting at something that is 'less than shiny' for hours on end. For many people, myself included, it can make the work slightly more enjoyable if we enjoy what we are looking at as well as what we are listening to. I mean we are talking about something that while it is visual and not audible, and we should be concerned with the audible side of things primarily, we do have to stare at the same screen for hours on end and even though it doesn't affect the audio coming out, it does affect our personality/morale/working attitude and might very well lead to getting exhausted a bit easier. Obviously all of this is slightly moot, and is part of why I used the wording I did, because the old addage goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What I think looks beautiful can be very different from what Paul does, or anyone else for that matter. There is no one single thing that will always be beautiful to everyone, but I think there can be some things that increase visual attractiveness to most people. Anyways random rambling over, does that provide a bit of clarity at all to this? Or just muddy the already opaque waters? Seablade