Gigantic DAW interface discussion

[jonljacobi]

I admit, I'm fascinated by interface design. Hence, I thought I'd start a topic devoted to it as it relates to DAWs. But before everyone gets to it...

First off, there is a science to UI design, though from what I see overall, I'm betting that not a lot of DAW vendors have studied up on it. (A couple may have...)

Shape consciousness, color psychology, as well as recognition (experienced/raw intuitive) and cognition times are all factors in how users react initially and over the long haul. Language, both conceptual and practical can be of great impact. The number of and placement of elements and options can greatly affect efficiency, and over time, the physical well-being of the user. E.g., until Apple implemented right-click functionality and more extensive keyboard commands, there was a rash of carpal tunnel syndrome in the graphic design community.

More often, people just judge these things intuitively. And of course, there are different usage scenarios that greatly affect opinion and the suitability to task.

Please forget bugs, features, etc. While these are extremely relevant to what you actually buy, I'd rather hear about what you'd use--all features being equal.

I'm going to post two polls. One for which interface you find the most attractive, and one you find the most efficient. In my case, those are two different programs. Put another way, the DAW that makes you most feel like sitting down to work, and the one that gets you from point A to point B the quickest. And please explain why.

[jonljacobi]

If you do feel like commenting, the more specific you can be, the better. I really like to know what it is about each interface that makes it your favorite, or how it makes the job (whatever the job is) easier for you than another DAW.

[rod_zero]

Live is the more efficient one, why? because it is minimal, doesn't get in the way and let you focus on the important.

[tooneba]

That's not called efficient. If simplest thing were efficient, all professional software should be like MS paint.

[original flipper]

Hi

The first thing I do when testing out a new DAW is to create a track, load up a VSTI, record some random notes/edit those notes and playback the midi clip/track.

Having used countless DAW's over the years (perhaps in excess of 100 over 30 years - including multiple versions of the same DAW) I am always AMAZED at just how difficult/convoluted the process that I described above can be, in some DAW's.

Sometimes I can manage the process described almost immediately, in others I have had to seek help/support and in more than a few cases I have just given up because to achieve what I was trying to do was just too fragmented or unintuitive.

A spartan GUI is no more 'complex' to use than one which is 'chock full' of information.

The first time I picked up Energy XT (which has a very sparse interface) I could get nowhere until I came here and got some directions - after that I really took to the program and used it up until XTV2 - now this is a good example of a spartan interface being difficult to use (for me), yet once I got over the 'hurdle' it was an application I really enjoyed using and appreciated that it had a very minimal interface.

That's not called efficient. If simplest thing were efficient, all professional software should be like MS paint.

I just don't believe that - some (nearly all) developers just can't 'leave it alone' - they keep adding feature after feature, charging for the updates, generating capital - this is the way the 'system' works isn't it?

Lets not forget that vast amounts of sublime music over decades was produced with the most basic and simple of equipment (when compared to what is in use today).

I like the idea of maintaining what is already there, keeping an application running on current/new o/s, bringing in features only after careful consideration as to how said feature 'fits in' with what is already there.

Of course if I was developing the above software I might have to find other streams of income to support myself .... Hey, I could develop synths and FX that people could use with my minimalist DAW!

[THE INTRANCER]

I studied and graduated in the field of interactive multimedia / interface development after 3 years, 9 years ago at Uni. Interface development is a bit of a guilty passion that I've been doing ever since then in both 2D & 3D aspects, designing original concepts, and redesigning existing concepts which are being used.

One of the most important aspects as a developer, is the understanding the needs of the user and their requirements.

There are a multitude of aspects which make a good interface and number of aspects which make a bad interface design.

One of the big flaws of some of daws today is that, some are too flat, our world isn't entirely flat so why should a creative artistic tool be ? Not everything in our world is rounded either, we don't expect our glass windows of our house to be rounded. Ultimately it's knowing when and what things need to be flat and what is to be rounded as our eye's expect it to be. Spacing, 'white space' between elements, colour, legibility of text ect.. are other elements that are important. As well as fluid design consistency.

Building an interface is like telling a story, a work of art.. or at least should be.

[Aloysius]

This one. Not that one.

[fedexnman]

I CANT stand Propellerheads Reason GUI it was too GIGANTIC for me . The mixer , rack , and sequencer ... It just seemed a big hot mess . I know people love Reason , I wanted to but I didn't jive with the interface . It's too bad for me really because so much comes with Reason and it now does VST plugins too .

[jonljacobi]

I like nice-looking designs and I like the organic process used by those that create them. But appeal is at least partially subjective and many of the factors, such as color are quantifiable.

On the other hand, someone pooh-poohed efficiency. When I talk about efficiency, I'm talking purely about the time from thought to end of action. This depends on where a feature is, how easy it is to locate it, and how long it takes the user to implement it. All these things can be observed and quantified. It's not a black art, though it is a fascinating balancing act.

[thecontrolcentre]

[THE INTRANCER]

Have you ever designed an interface, I mean a functional one ?

[Zexila]

Logic 8/9 on both points.

[jonljacobi]

Yes (regarding GUI design). And had a hand in some you've probably used. Now, I simply review stuff. You needn't take my word for any of this, it's publicly available knowledge.

Love the pic. LOL. Please, back to what features you guys find clever/efficient or not in a DAW.

~Jon

[Winstontaneous]

For me, Ableton Live gets out of the way and lets me make music more efficiently than other DAWs I've used. I use Live about 70% of the time, Logic/Reason the other 30% which is why I harp on them below.

Here's why:
- Scalable - including text - Logic/Reason don't
- A variety of attractive, quickly adjustable color scheme settings
- It's literally the only program of any sort I've used that fully overcomes OSX' crappy window-handling defaults. What do I mean by this? Being able to use Tab and/or arrow keys to navigate in pop-up selection windows (Save, confirm delete, etc.) WITHOUT mouse/trackpad. Logic is wretched in this area
- Sane plugin window management settings in terms of setting single vs. multiple windows, and changing with track selection - IME Live is the best and Logic is the worst in this regard
- Detailed, comprehensive switchable pop-up help that can be extended to Max for Live devices, and doesn't obscure the mouse pointer area like Logic
- Supports all popular consumer MIDI controllers (including transport control!) out of the box - a huge Logic weakness
- Doesn't have huge frequent updates or try to do everything a DAW could possibly do - thereby having a more focused featured set I can master in a reasonable amount of time. Some may see this as a negative, I prefer software that aspires to the solidity of hardware.
- Certainly not least - if you come from an analog recording background, Live lets you quickly record output of master/arbitrary channels & busses in real time (not just render/bounce) - so you can capture what you're monitoring at all times if desired without complicated buss routing/plugins/external audiostream capture software. So Live is one big meta-sampler - take the clips you recorded in realtime, stick 'em in a Simpler or slice to a new track and you're good to go, and resample on the fly if you want. It's not exclusive to Live (also trivially simple in AudioMulch & Reaper) but I'm surprised this isn't a standard feature in all DAWs (Logic, Tracktion, Reason).

[Winstontaneous]

For me, Ableton Live gets out of the way and lets me make music more efficiently than other DAWs I've used. I use Live about 70% of the time, Logic/Reason the other 30% which is why I harp on them below.

Here's why I enjoy Live:
- Scalable - including text - Logic/Reason don't
- A variety of attractive, quickly adjustable color scheme settings
- It's literally the only program of any sort I've used that fully overcomes OSX' crappy window-handling defaults. What do I mean by this? Being able to use Tab and/or arrow keys to navigate in pop-up selection windows (Save, confirm delete, etc.) WITHOUT mouse/trackpad. Logic is wretched in this area!
- Sane plugin window management settings in terms of setting single vs. multiple windows, and changing with track selection - IME Live is the best and Logic is the worst in this regard. "Link" icon in Logic popup windows doesn't really cut it, and plugin window state not being saved to each Logic Screenset makes them basically useless for me
- Detailed, comprehensive switchable pop-up help that can be extended to Max for Live devices, and doesn't obscure the mouse pointer area like Logic
- Supports all popular consumer MIDI controllers (including transport control!) out of the box - a huge Logic weakness, I guess not too surprising as they want you to buy an iPad for Logic Control
- Doesn't have huge frequent updates or try to do everything a DAW could possibly do - thereby having a more focused featured set I can master in a reasonable amount of time. Some may see this as a negative, I prefer software that aspires to the solidity of hardware.
- Certainly not least - if you come from an analog recording background, Live lets you quickly record output of master/arbitrary channels & busses in real time (not just render/bounce) - so you can capture what you're monitoring at all times if desired without complicated buss routing/plugins/external audiostream capture software. So Live is one big meta-sampler - take the clips you recorded in realtime, stick 'em in a Simpler or slice to a new track and you're good to go, and resample on the fly if you want. It's not exclusive to Live (also trivially simple in AudioMulch & Reaper) but I'm surprised this isn't a standard feature in all DAWs (Logic, Tracktion, Reason).