Hi there

I'm think of redesigning the GUI of Ethereal, for one thing it is very big and not very pretty.

Some options that I'am thinking of are

Not having all the stuff of the screen at once, this by putting things such as envelope draw, effects etc into windows which can be minimized , moved around etc.

Moving to a less 3d'ish type GUI, more similar to the design I've done for dicer (see picture below)



Any ideas or suggestions would be more than welcome, either here or you can email at mail@concretefx.com


Cheers Jon

much better:)

As you asked, some random suggestions :

- instead of popup windows that can quickly become a mess, a tabbed interface would be a better solution IMHO.

- when I tried the Ethereal demo, one thing that bothered me was having to go through menus to select the currently edited enveloppe. Having a row of buttons instead of a menu would make editing nicer.

- make it skinnable, so that other talented designers can have a shot at it (look what Nbeat did with Pentagon I).

Cheers
JM

your programs are all awesome but i think with a professional GUI, you will sell a lot more of them because most of the people (including me) are also looking at the interface

look at this guy :
http://www.sr-interface.com/sr_room.swf
then go to BOOK , there are all his GUI´s he made for other synth programmers

maybe he can help you

best regards

they all look like hardware ? unless I clicked something wrong

and many would prefer the ui's as they are now than trying to make s/w look like hardware.

the UI's are nice on that site but not exactly innovating.

moroe wrote:

your programs are all awesome but i think with a professional GUI, you will sell a lot more of them because most of the people (including me) are also looking at the interface look at this guy : http://www.sr-interface.com/sr_room.swf then go to BOOK , there are all his GUI´s he made for other synth programmers maybe he can help you best regards

Skinning the GUI sounds like fun to me!

Jon's interfaces have been getting better and better. I personally would like to see some thinner lines and smaller fonts to make better use of space, but that's just the sort of thing I'm into. Thick, anti-aliased lines just take up more room, IMO.

As for the actual, original question - tabbed is a good way to go. But I admit I did like the popup keyboard I saw in one demo. So why not do a mix of tabbed and popups? There can be a certain logic to it. Things that work on the sound, such as FX and ADSR can be tabbed while external things such as the keyboard and global options would pop up.

Quote:

they all like hardware ? unless I clicked something wrong and many would prefer the ui's as they are now than trying to make s/w look like hardware.

Yes, enough with the faux-hardware look, already.

Go for the extra windows and tabs -- take advantage of what *software* can do!

James

Hi, my thoughts on ConcreteFX plugins:

- For the most part, I prefer the flat look in dicer than the 3D look. Buttons might benefit from a slight 3D appearance, or at least should flash when pressed.

- Sliders are good. Easier to use than knobs, but they take more space so perhaps just use them for the more important parameters.

- I always hated the knobs - in particular the dot which indicates the knob value. The worst bit is that you can't distinguish between the 0% and 100% setting! I suggest using a LINE instead of a DOT, and instead of turning the knob an entire 360 degrees, allow it to turn about 270 degrees.

- You probably have your hands full programming, so hire someone to make presets . In most of the plugs, only a few presets really show the potential of the thing. Most of us try out the presets to decide whether a plugin is even worth a further look.

Tom

I really enjoy contex sensitive controls like Ohm FOrce uses on Quad fromage and Ohm Boyz. They take up les space and put eveything there when you want it and hide it when you don't.

what plugin would that be ?

ethereal certainly shows the readout of each control

TomD wrote:

Hi, my thoughts on ConcreteFX plugins: The worst bit is that you can't distinguish between the 0% and 100% setting! Tom

topaz wrote:

what plugin would that be ? ethereal certainly shows the readout of each control

Only when you are actually moving the knob IIRC. It's hard to tell the value of a parameter just be glancing at the knob. The 'dot' pointer is part of the problem. The other problem is that if the dot is near the 6-o'clock position, it's hard to tell whether it is fully on or fully off.

Tom

what plugin, again Ether shows a read out at the bottom panel ?

TomD wrote:

topaz wrote: what plugin would that be ? ethereal certainly shows the readout of each control Only when you are actually moving the knob IIRC. It's hard to tell the value of a parameter just be glancing at the knob. The 'dot' pointer is part of the problem. The other problem is that if the dot is near the 6-o'clock position, it's hard to tell whether it is fully on or fully off. Tom

pough wrote:

Jon's interfaces have been getting better and better.

IMHO, everything about ConcreteFX, from design to implementation to value, has been growing quite rapidly.

As far as a GUI overhaul goes, it's amazing how people feel about what they look at. If I were in charge of GUI design, I'd probably suggest that ConcreteFX goes for sorta the Ableton Live kinda look. I think it might keep in line with the kind of asthetic CFX is going for while tidying up the interface. Im not saying mimic it entirely, but it's simple use of graphics and color make things look unique, yet easily understandable.

i love it! im beging to hate the hardware look the software look is awesome..tracktion..ableton software should look like software.

I'll agree with that. I love the look of tracktion and Live. That kind of macro media kind of look.

Hi there

Thanks for all the feedback, always it been very useful.

Wwhat I'm going to do is a 'softwarey' look with the osc , filter and main always show and the envelope, effects, presets etc being in a tabbed area . New version should be out in the next day or two

I agree that the 'hardware look' is beginning to be a bit dated, there no reason to try to emulate the look of a hardware and it can really constrain the design. Let start a campaign for software that looks like software !

Cheers

Jon : ConcreteFX

Allow me to disagree,I like the hardware look.It's what I grew up on and I feel comfortable with the style.I would like to see an Ohm Force type of system that offers two styles of gui's.One for those who prefer the hardware look and those who prefer a software look whatever that may be.Just my opinion.

Quote:

Let start a campaign for software that looks like software !

i guess the question i've got then is "what exactly does software look like?" since i just started making synths, this is a topic i am very interested in discussing.

my gui for motion is definitely leaning towards the hardware end of things. for my next synth, i certainly wouldnt mind trying to design something that looks less hardware.

but on the other hand...things that look and work like buttons, knobs and sliders are familiar tools to users and therefore can potentially make the UI more comfortable than something abstract.

so is the issue also one of function or just visual?

what i mean is, should the debate be between:

a. "classic" control look *and* function vs abstract/new look, layout and function

...or...

b. photo realism (and vintage hardware recreation) vs synthtic/cell shading/etc. ?

-ugo

i think it should be a mixture between hardware and software look

and the middle of things is always the best

Quote:

Let start a campaign for software that looks like software !

Absolutely! I'm with you 100%, Jon!

And I say that as a paying, ConcreteFX customer.

James

Hi there

This is the design for the envelope / sampler part of the new GUI




Though it might change

Cheers

Jon: ConcreteFX

Quote:

i guess the question i've got then is "what exactly does software look like?" since i just started making synths, this is a topic i am very interested in discussing. my gui for motion is definitely leaning towards the hardware end of things. for my next synth, i certainly wouldnt mind trying to design something that looks less hardware. but on the other hand...things that look and work like buttons, knobs and sliders are familiar tools to users and therefore can potentially make the UI more comfortable than something abstract. so is the issue also one of function or just visual? what i mean is, should the debate be between: a. "classic" control look *and* function vs abstract/new look, layout and function ...or... b. photo realism (and vintage hardware recreation) vs synthtic/cell shading/etc. ?

As someone who is voting for the "software look" ...

I don't mind a bit of photo-realism for something like a drawbar organ when the whole point of the plugin is to recreate a well-known physical instrument *and* when that instrument has controls -- like an organ's drawbars, for example -- that can translate to software controls that are easy to manipulate. Organ drawbars to sliders, for example.

OTOH, it drives me crazy to see a plugin that uses a clumsy knob and a faux-transparent mini-LED to switch between 10 discrete values instead of using a dropdown list or a popup. Force the user to have to dial in a value with a half dozen clicks and/or awkward turning/sliding of a knob just to pick a value? When you can do the same thing with one or two clicks using a dropdown or a popup? Are you kidding me? The Project5 PSYN synth is the latest horror to follow this misguided abuse of faux-hardware L&F. And let's not even mention the F1-F4 buttons on the DS-404. For crying out loud.

On the *other* other hand, there's certainly nothing wrong with using sliders, and whatever controls that are intuitive and make it *easy* to work the UI. And nothing wrong with a nice choice of colors and even some fancy-looking stuff, so long as it doesn't get in the way of *using* the UI.

James

ugo wrote:

so is the issue also one of function or just visual? what i mean is, should the debate be between: a. "classic" control look *and* function vs abstract/new look, layout and function ...or... b. photo realism (and vintage hardware recreation) vs synthtic/cell shading/etc. ?

Personally I think most people think 'b' when they enter into this type of discussion. While Im absolutely no expert on UI, I have studied UI design from an engineering standpoint.

There are different tradeoffs in either direction. For instance, Ableton Live takes some traditional controls (such as knobs and sliders) and made them simple yet asthetically pleasing (Im sure from a standout perspective, as well as a 'save on the CPU/Redraw/Memory' aspect). There's no mistaking the function of each 'widget' yet they're different and marry into the interface in such a way that it's not as daunting or distracting. Tracktion is yet another example of different yet easy visualization of work and vector mixing. Many Tracktioneers will tell you that they've never read the manual, as most of the functional bits that concerns anyone the most are clear in their role and function.

There are those that feel differently, and I would guess that it's either the asthetics don't exactly match their particular tastes (after all, there is no pleasing everyone) or there is comfort in the interfaces they know and have used.

Plugins and other products, much like the songs that are created with them, are the artisitc and engineering vision of their creator. If you want to convery hardware or vintage, go for it. If you want to convey something unique and different, then go for it.

Personally, I find brushed metal and faux wood as unappealing and embarassing in real life as I do in software

kantos, nothing come close as far as making the softwares soul ( if indeed software has a soul) visible.

ugh, i can't stand the kantos GUI i think its one of the worst i've seen. Looks like they wasted alot of screen space with that symmetrical bio-mechanical design. I think the design makes it look like a toy.

I prefer to use plugins whose GUI's don't intrude with their own 'atmosphere' as strongly as this.. so for me, it doesnt matter whether a GUI emulates the look of hardware or not, as long as it doesn't look like there's been any assumption on the part of the designer about what kind of music its going to be used to create.

(i reckon the photorealistic hardware look works best when their are relatively few controls though, and flat graphics make dense control panels easier to read, of course..)

I suppose this is a little premature, but I've already started making a skin for Dicer!



Sorry, Jon. I'm just a little bit bored. When is Dicer coming out, anyways? I'm hoping that it will stop me from buying Intakt...

pough wrote:

I suppose this is a little premature, but I've already started making a skin for Dicer! Sorry, Jon. I'm just a little bit bored. When is Dicer coming out, anyways? I'm hoping that it will stop me from buying Intakt...

Beta tests are looking promising here so far.

As far as able to replace Intakt ? not sure about that, the only NI product I have (and will have, short of a contest win) is B-4, so I've not looked at Intakt's capabilities.

BTW I like that skin. The existing skin... it's functional, but I'm not wild about it (I'll probably comment more in e-mail, Jon).

Doug

moroe wrote:

look at this guy : http://www.sr-interface.com/sr_room.swf then go to BOOK , there are all his GUI´s he made for other synth programmers. maybe he can help you

Good stuff!

Some random thoughts:

* First of all, I'm thilled that you're agreeable to a UI update, Jon. I think Ethereal has great potential but a software instrument NEEDS to be inspiring visually as well as sound good. A professional recording studio is like a high-tech church for a lot of musicians. Just being in the environment can be an inspiring escape from everyday life. I like a GUI that gives that same sense of awe... Not asking too much am I? ; - )
* Personally, I think the futuristic 3d interfaces are wonderfull. Just because an interface is 3 dimensional doesn't necessarily mean it has to be counter-intuitive or wastefull of space. Obviously, usability should not be sacrificed for beauty. (But ugly just plain sucks)
* Either popups or tabs are a fine use of space because neither take up precious screen real-estate when they're not in use. I still like the way the envelope-activity-leds in my initial proposed gui served as a visual indicator of what was active in the patch and also doubled as tabs for one-click envelope access.
http://wave.prohosting.com/jzero/ethergui.html
* The Ethereal2 gui is 3d, but very heavy on the shadows and the layout is a touch cluttered. Do I really need two seperate filter sections that have the same buttons? Must I see all the FX settings all the time?
* The new Dicer look is quite nice. Though, I don't think that the red goes with blue...
* Whatever route you decide to take for the visuals, I hope that skinning is an option. Even better would be if you could allow the skinner to use a text file to define the placement and dimensions of the necessary bitmaps. This way the skinner's gui could be a nearly complete re-design if they so desired...[/url]

i love the way the new envolope section looks i hope the rest of the synth follows suit.

cbit wrote:

ugh, i can't stand the kantos GUI i think its one of the worst i've seen. Looks like they wasted alot of screen space with that symmetrical bio-mechanical design. I think the design makes it look like a toy. I prefer to use plugins whose GUI's don't intrude with their own 'atmosphere' as strongly as this.. so for me, it doesnt matter whether a GUI emulates the look of hardware or not, as long as it doesn't look like there's been any assumption on the part of the designer about what kind of music its going to be used to create. (i reckon the photorealistic hardware look works best when their are relatively few controls though, and flat graphics make dense control panels easier to read, of course..)

hi there you go...ive heard and read from other people that they just stood and stared in awe when they first saw kantos, loved it. its no good at all from a designers and developers point of view to ask...'how should software look' (they should ask that but in more confined, 'how should THIS software look')..its like asking 'how should clothes look ' or 'how should music sound', impossible and pointless.

as long as it does its job (doesnt get in the way of using the software but instead aids in learning, using and experimenting) and the developer, some customers and the designer are happy then thats all that counts, the majority of customers arent bothered or havnt a clue whats good and whats not anyway, some will like it and some will hate it, thats the impression ive got from reading a lot of forums over the last few years.

Hi there

Thanks again for all the feedback. The skin from Pough is very nice , and looking at that I think that I'll have to look at making the GUI skinable

Cheers

Jon

I forgot to mention it, Jon... You're latest version's gui is much more responsive... all the controls feel faster, nice! And the CPU reduction is a welcome improvement too.