Re: AU interface consistency
Re: AU interface consistency
- Subject: Re: AU interface consistency
- From: Urs Heckmann <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:49:46 +0200
Am Mittwoch, 02.10.02, um 14:06 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb
email@hidden:
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!
I see that.
I still insist, corporate design (== different look) for any give
AudioUnit makes sense. One glance - you know which it is. You don't
even have to read the window title.
Simple controls should sport same behaviour even if look differs. Best
example are knobs and sliders.
Some sliders/knobs feature sort of range attributes next to value. This
is quite common and should be proposed by guidelines. Other commonly
used extensions to basic controls should always be implemented with
consistent functionality.
More complex controls can't be represented by standard means. If
applicable, functionality should be implemented consistently. Given
example is option-drag for copy of selected item(s).
But please don't take away the fine art of screen design. There are
really bad examples out there, but many plugins have nice and tasteful
appearance, wonderfully designed and still are consistent in
operational aspects.
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.
Don't misunderstand me, I hate using knobs (except for Powermate :-)
but their quality in expression and spatial savings are superior. (If
designed well, of course)
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.
Yes, but we're used to these metaphors: Desktop, Dustbin, Photoshop
tools. I only need to look at the Dock, there is a world map, a postal
stamp, a clock, a light switch, a telephone, a sheet of paper, several
file folders...
It is common practice to use metaphors from physical world in software
design. It establishes functionality by addressing the user's cultural
background. (But okay, it's a frequently made mistake to push this too
far. It has to be made with sort of wisdom. Some people prefer
marketing over latter.)
And it often really looks nice. If I wouldn't spend my AUs (har har,
none is finished yet) nice user interfaces, I simply wouldn't attract
as many customers.
I suggest an experiment: Run Logic Audio in MacOS 9. Open More Feedback
Machine or ES-2. Then switch the custom gui to controls-view. - Don't
tell me what you see is in any way usable!
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.