Re: Yet another interface idea
Re: Yet another interface idea
- Subject: Re: Yet another interface idea
- From: Michael Ashton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:45:20 -0700
On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 01:18 AM, Arthur Clemens wrote:
I am completely in the dark how anyone could use such an interface. It
is too indirect, too ambivalent. Why x? Why w?
heh. Well, actually, I was thinking of a mixer: track 1 volume 'z', 2 =
'x', 3 = 'c', etc. Track 1 low EQ: 'a', 2 = 's', 3 = 'd', etc. Track 1
mid EQ: 'q', 2 'w', 3 'e', etc. Very spur-of-the-moment.
It has all the wrongs of the knobs interface: you cannot *see* how you
should operate it, you have to remember it.
Yep. Sort of like a Unix command line. Hard to learn, easy to use.
Let's see how this interface works, step by step:
You look at the screen: you notice the level of track 2 should be
diminished. You now have to look at the keyboard for your fingers to
find the x (some keys are even more difficult to reach with your left
hand: P, L, M, etc.).
After you got used to it, you'd probably remember where the keys should
be, if they were arranged sensibly.
You tap the x with your left hand, then look at the screen again
before you move because you want visual feedback: the level should not
be too low.
Wouldn't it be far easier if you could keep on looking at the screen
while adjusting values?
Well, you would. As a key is held down, you'd move the mouse, and see
the value change on the screen - or, what's more likely, you'd be
listening to the result.
There are more flaws.
Oh yes, that's very true ..
How would you remember the usage of all keys? If you hit the wrong
key, that would be an extreme annoyance (suppose you were mixing
live!). OK, the key names could be on the screen, adding some more
clutter.
I'd probably put them on the screen. Cluttered, yes, perhaps. But my
motto is "form follows function". (That being said, I love the Mac for
both :) )
O yeah, they could be hidden and they appear when you hit the space
bar.
Could be, yes.
Suppose the program evolves and offers more options, some extra
sliders, some more keys have to be assigned. You have to learn the new
keys. Your have to unlearn your hard learned combinations.
That's a big problem, yes.
Soon the program runs out of keys. Now key combinations are offered.
Now you also have to remember SHIFT-g, ALT-d, etc.
And this really is the Achilles' heel of the whole thing. Audio tools
have LOTS of parameters, but there are only so many keys on a keyboard.
Then some small software house writes a plugin. They have assigned the
function keys for their knobs. It all works with version 1.0 of the
Musical Key Mixer. Version 2.0 comes along and now uses the function
keys too. Too bad for the plugin writers, as their plugin is overruled
by the function keys of the main program.
Here's another big problem: focus. What if you have a text box on the
screen, and it gets the focus? Then pressing keys wouldn't have the
expected effect of selecting parameters for adjustment. It's a mode
problem.
This could be helped by having an additional keyboard - a programmable
USB keypad, say - dedicated for parameter selection, but it would have
to be very large.
It's got big problems, yes; but I still like the basic idea of it.
cheers -- Michael Ashton <email@hidden>
_______________________________________________
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.