Re: AU interface consistency
Re: AU interface consistency
- Subject: Re: AU interface consistency
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:06:02 +0100
Hi Urs,
I'm sure you would agree that if an application had a different UI
(visually and functionally) for different operations within the same
scope, this would be bad interface design. But this is what's proposed
with the idea of different interfaces for AUs. Sure these applications
that use custom interfaces (maybe they are warranted, or not, I've seen
plenty that don't need them), but if they took the next step and made
it different even from within itself the developers are just silly!
Maybe standard controls aren't sufficient in some cases for audio, and
as you write I see more of this, but my main concern has always been
the idea of a different interface for every AU.
In any case, you have been the only one to give a good reason to use
knobs as a control (spatial) - but perhaps something else could have
been used for your needs, may even a totally new way of working with
it, functionally speaking.
I suggest that basing an computer software audio interface on an audio
component is not necessary, since they aren't the same thing, aren't
used the same way (with fingers), and aren't limited in the same way.
Maybe a new interface should be developed, but all I'm worried about is
going from different interface to different interface to different
interface all within the same application.
-- John
Hi John,
let me clear some things: In my opinion, consistency is good when it
means adding reliable ways of access to the underlaying model of a
control. A fader is a fader no matter what he looks like. If it is not
a fader, he shouldn't pretend to be one.
Consistency is bad when it prevents you from giving controls an
iconographic meaning by support of visual expression.
We have furthermore to decide what is styling and what is design for
usability.
For example, if a plugin (or whatever entity) is complex enough to
sport dozens of controls, the benefits of a "tidied up" and therefore
large interface are almost certainly inferior to a compact design
where many controls live in a narrow space but feature other means of
order or perceivibility (strange word, does it exist?).
For instance, my plugin, More Feedback Machine, sports 111 parameters,
each of which being important for the user. If I had made them
system-style sliders, I would have wasted 2/3 of a usual screen
estate. Instead, I made them knobs in an unconventional yet tidied up
layout. By giving them a certain, "continuous" color code ( red ==
negative value, pale brown == zero, green == positive value), the user
recognizes every characteristic aspect of the whole parameter set at a
glance. And I still have a reasonably small window so you have an
overview over the rest of your application.
All I say is, there are certain aspects of behaviour and layout that
are ruled by "law of consistency". There are other aspects, that are
"free" if you want, but are most oftenly better handled in a more
sophisticated way, other than arbitrary. The "how" depends on the sole
unique application. The good design of a user interface isn't just
"how does it match the rules", it is merely "how does it work best" -
And that's not too often standard-like in audio applications.
Another example given, for working on MIDI events I use three views in
Logic for the same data: Score editor for a traditional overview,
matrix editor for overview of exact length and quantized positioning
and list view for microspace fine tuning. These all look and behave
completely different but have certain advantages, each allowing for
fulfilling different needs/tasks. An aspect of consistency is,
whenever I [alt]-drag, I generate a copy of a certain event or
selection.
The difference between music software and other (but surely not all)
tools is:
- You often work intuitively, not scientific this-parameter-that
- You need to have a complete overview and reference of what happens,
otherwise you loose track
- Even in situations concentrating on specific aspects, there can be
dozens of parameters per editor
- There's about no task where one editor acts alone, you always need
contact to several other editors
- Your work isn't "situational coherent", you frequently jump between
tasks
- Therefore, screen estate counts and compact sub-environments offer
advantage against generous layouts
- more things not mentioned (may become a PhD thesis, then)
Speaking in general, this makes it different from word processing (one
main document view, supporting parameters surrounding), digital
imaging (many compactly displayed standard tools, all acting on one
document view, some occasionally used add ons), CAD/3D stuff (quite
complex, but a more situated long-term work on models, animation,
details, textures, etc.) and (not as much) video editing. Latter can
be almost as complex as music, if you think of After Effects. You
could mention software development, but all the different files
belonging to one program are still of same type, text that is.
He he, I used V-reorder on the quotes. Going in danger to repeat
myself: Consistency belongs to how-do-specific-controls-work and how
are aspects of design like mapping or grouping met. Spoken simply:
Does the user get what he expects?
Leaving traditional meaning of consitency (may I say equality?), I
think music is a poor visual actor and we use to deal with
conventions, neatly wrapped in terminology and parameters. Hence
graphical visualization is a higher order abstraction compared to
painting or writing, therefore has poor WYSIWYG and thus needs more
specialized iconography and functionality. If by any means of design
or customization, accessibility and usability are increased, this
should be preferred over copy paste guidelines (i.e. "vintage look").
(Though I must admit, it is often styling == marketing, not design)
The success of Logic is based on you-can-do-it-if-only-you-know-me,
not on here-it-is-and-that-is-all. Sometimes the trouble of a huge
learning curve gets outpaced by the advantages you get after. (Same
seems to apply to developing AudioUnits vs. VST :-)
Did you realize, software for time-variant media commonly uses more
custom controls than software for static media? (What is a piece of
software then, static or time-variant?)
Now I'm tired and get some sleep. I follow this later, if not
everybody is bored by this.
Cheers,
;) Urs
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.