Rethinking of the browser????

[MuTools]

Honestly, I like alot about MuLab & I think it's got a lovely GUI, but I find the fonts kind of thin & weak looking. It would be great to have some selection. Is this difficult from a development perspective?

Allow me to bypass that last question atm. But that said, maybe some future version will have more font type choices.

[MuTools]

Have a look here:
...
You just have to eliminate the top of the browser window in your mind...
I find this a lot easier and much faster to use...

Thx for demonstrating your preference. As i already wrote a single tree list that holds each and all groups (VSTs, Midi files, MUX presets, internal project samples, sample files, etc, etc, etc) has the disadvantage that you have to scroll & search for 'the other group' when you want to change. Now all main groups are immediately available, independent from your tree list position. I'll keep it as is for now. Also because there are other todos which i already have prioritized as next steps. That said, i'll stay open to improve the browser (eg with preferences) at later time.

[sl23]

I agree, the browser makes you stop and think about what you're trying to do. It shouldn't be like that, as it interrupts the flow.

I don't like the idea of predefined folder unless they can be removed. Not everyone wants all of the factory ones in there. But otherwise, great idea Trancit

Explain me how you want to show all of your samples, all of your VSTs, all of your MUX presets etc all at the same time without any kind of grouping.

Sorry for the delay.

Basically, I meant exactly what Trancit is on about. Folders in a treeview config, except, where the user can specify folders instead of starting at the Library route, or whatever. So I could have a VST folder, a MuX folder, one for Recordings, Samples, etc either at a root of each type or several sub-folders for each. And even allow for several sample or VST locations. I don't install VST's, if they need an installation, I don't use them, simple as that, can't be assed with installing and setting stuff up again over and over, just because my PC might need a reset!

Now here, it might get confusing. Let's say I wanted to make a Parent-folder called Audio. This isn't a folder on the PC but just a container grouping within MuLab. Then I specify which folders to add to it from various locations on my hard drive. Thereby creating a folder containing all audio folders but not necessarily those specified by the app itself.

EDIT: I just read your post above, no worries, I suppose it's a personal preference really!

[MuTools]

Did you already try the browser presets? Sounds much like what you're asking, no?

[janhardo]

Ok, @Trancit want to see a tree at first glance....but clicking on "what" shows also the tree ..so it makes no difference.
But he has a point i think too: with a direct permanent tree there is a better interaction possible.

Instead of having the where and what fields, you just have folders directly in the browse field... when you open a folder it shows the content... no matter if it´s samples, devices, presets or whatever...
No need to think about the content before... install FLS and play around with the browser... it´s a perfect example except, that there are too many folders predefined

[MuTools]

Another advantage of how it is now (besides more instant access to the main folder groups) is that the position within the main folder groups is memorized when switching between groups. For example imagine you're somewhere in a vast sample sub-folder, and you need a VST effect, that can be done quickly, then you can quickly return to "Samples" and it's perfectly back at that same position.

@Trancit: The video you posted only has very short sub-groups. In case all your main groups would be very short lists then a unified tree list could be better. But that's a rather exceptional case, i'm sure you have many many VSTs, MUX presets, at least (ten)thousands of samples etc.

[Grizzellda]

Honestly, I like alot about MuLab & I think it's got a lovely GUI, but I find the fonts kind of thin & weak looking. It would be great to have some selection. Is this difficult from a development perspective?

Allow me to bypass that last question atm. But that said, maybe some future version will have more font type choices.

Great to hear that - Thank you for considering it!

[MuTools]

If you encounter a daw/app which has a very comfortable font, feel free to post a link/screenshot. That way we can compare.

[liquidsound]

I enjoy Ableton Live's fonts. I'm not sure maybe is Futura?

[MuTools]

Looks like it mostly uses a bold font, maybe that's what makes it more appealing / comfortable?

[Taron]

Just to provide a tiny bit of balance here: I - for my part- don't mind the existing font at all.
Yeah, my eyes are beginning to crap out the last few years, which really bugs me, but I don't think any font would fix that...

When I read "browser" I thought for a moment you were talking about the file requester that comes up when you want to save something. I had some troublesome moments with it, too, when I would have WELL preferred the standard windows file requester, which allows you not only to add folders, but delete stuff as well and where everyone knows by heart how to navigate through it and where a file is saved to or a folder is added in. But well... I wonder, if that's a mac related heritage in mulab? I'm not familiar with macs, you know.

[dakkra]

Comic Sans!! I want Comic Sans for the font...
... okay no.

Something like Adobe Sans Pro would be great though! Royalty free in ttf and otf formats. I use it in my application and (ironically) many new IDEs/TextEditors adopting that family of fonts.

I've honestly never had a liking or disliking for the font in Mulab. Fonts (imo) are a nightmare that sometimes aren't worth dealing with unless there's a clean solution out (thus why word documents have 100's of fonts, because everyone likes something different).

From what I've found, simple sans fonts seem to be goto right now (and Mulab has that already). Then again i'm not exactly a "good judge" on that.

Dakkra

[sl23]

Personally, I think mulab's font is OK as far as readability is concerned. But I think also it makes it look untidy and less professional.

I understand something like this taking a back seat and believe it unnecessary to fill mulab with fonts to suit everyone. For the record, my preference is Corbel. If fonts are required it should be down to the user to supply the font.

[dakkra]

If fonts are required it should be down to the user to supply the font.

+1

[mgiambro]

Reading through this thread makes me realise just how difficult Jo's job is. What is logical and intuitive to the majority is illogical and unintuitive to some. I think part of the problem is people who have worked in different daws get used to things work in that daw and would like other daws to work in the same way. Of course the balance for such an accommodating dev as Jo is to carefully choose what would be an improvement over bowing to the whims of individuals, when their suggestions may well not be appreciated by the majority of the products users. Personally, I'm happy with the browser. For me, having everything in a single tree would be unwieldy. Filtering/separating patches, samples, vsts makes perfect sense to me. Fonts? Really? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but MuLabs font is pretty neutral. If it were some out-there gothic font, I'd understand the problem. To offer a viewpoint about the gui... MuLab is powerful and user-friendly. I'm not a salesman, but I'd imagine selling it as both is a challenge. I could imagine that the ui could mislead some.