On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:00:46 -1000 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote: I would not impose that on SW designers and developers, for the simple reason that there's no solid use case supporting the benefits of having multiple windows per application. Good if it can produce high quality mixes. I prefer Harrison's 32C mix strips. Not because there were used for countless artists, from Paul Simon to Supertramp, to Zappa, and all, but because I noticed a nice output for what I am doing. Rosegarden seems to come from another age, as far an application design is concerned. Makes me think when I was using Muse 10 years ago. But then, I do not write music, nor read it. It might very well be that there's not much choice for such software under Linux. It sounds as if every desktop screen comes as a surprise to the user. Wow, what's this desktop screen I just switched to ? Wasn't it the one I set up and used in the last 3 minutes, in which I exactly know the line of the source code I was editing ? Oh not, I already forgot, this screen IS a surprise, my neural network has to adapt, what an effort. I wonder how much effort is required then, to switch from one zyn window, with all its little tiny intricate details, to another zyn window, to another set of tiny little intricate details I do not see creating music much of a task per se, as a play. A play that uses various tools, each offering a ground, a terrain, to play. If the play moves towards a tracker approach combined with a sampler, then Renoise is there. If it moves towards a playful modular approach then Bitwig is there. And in the end, it gets mixed in Ardour (Mixbus 32C) for the obvious advantages it offers. Same with sounds and the various synths. In the end, in the essence of things, only one single sound, one single, modulated note would be needed to represent the quest for the existence in life, the vibration that moves all atoms, represented in a frequency range that's possible to hear. But meanwhile, there are all those notes and beats, and different sounds, and voices and things. This is the Kun of Qian/Kun of the I Ching. All those details of the Earth, and then all that smoothness of heaven, of the sky. Well, there are use cases. If the concept of having an app popping up many windows as part of its regular workflow would have gained public acceptance as being a truly nice way of getting things done, then it would have been much more popular. In the graphics world, the clear metaphor is with the painter's palette. The painter has a canvas and a palette, both active at the same time since colours are brought from the palette to the canvas. But there's no such thing with audio apps. A MSEG is not created and then dropped upon the fractal generator. Rather, each one of the parameters contributes to the sound, in its own capacity. From the human creation perspective, sequentially. Adjust the key follower there, the FMO here, the ADSR, assign modulation to this, go back to the MSEG, etc... Each in its own capacity to contribute to a sound. I do not think so, not at all. A great deal is given to the UI. At times a bad UI can even be detrimental to an otherwise excellent sound generation program. When people do not pay for it, and when people who works on that are not paid, having other means of assuring subsistance, then things can be light, can be so-so. Does not matter much if the UI is not so good. But when a living is in question, when there is competition, there is a lot going on in the UIs. All u-he synths for instance have polished UIs. A lot is being spent on UI designs. For MFM2 it is clearly stated in the documentation. They could have made it dull to look at, but they wanted to convey the circular motion of what the application can do. And that's not to mention u-he's Triple Cheese free synth, riddled with cheese holes all over. Laziness on the UI design side is certainly not something common in the field we discussing, audio creation. In the domain of commercial software where competition and a living is concerned. For an accountant software, it would be different.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:12:28 +0100 Will Godfrey <willgodfrey(a)musically.me.uk> wrote: There are certainly studies and papers on GUI design. By both independent researchers and by companies. There;s always research in that field after all. Well, it's of course up to the people creating the applications. If one team really like the OS/2 way of doing UI and want to stick to it today and for the next 10 years, it's up to them, really. There is no GUI police. I think. Nor there is no guarantee in popularity. Who knows, there might be people out there who are working in banking institutions that have developed a nostalgia for OS/2. That would constitute a riche market, er, a niche market. One thing in discussing the topic is that it might start some reflection on why certain things are done. If the result of the reflection is that so much time is spent on doing and maintaining something that turns out to be not so important, then that time can be spent on doing something that is more relevant to the purpose of the application. Otherwise, business as usual.