Hive 2 is coming!

[Touch The Universe]

edit**

Haha, too much time on my hands

Good thing no one quoted it or it'd be in vain

[spunkmuffin]

The old UI has AMP before MOD on both sides of the UI (AMP1 to the left of MOD1 & AMP2 to the left of AMP2).
The new UI has MOD1 to the left of AMP1 on the left side, and MOD2 to the right of AMP2 on the right side.
So the new UI is more symmetrical than the old UI which in my opinion suits Hive better, as Hive is a symmetrical design.

I also like the LFO's closer to the centre hex.

So I like this:

MOD1 | AMP1 | LFO1 | HEX | LFO2 | AMP2 | MOD2

more than this:

LFO1 | AMP1 | MOD1 | HEX | AMP2 | MOD2 | LFO2

[nachenko]

yogi, you made a great analysis and I'm pretty sure you have the knowledge to go much deeper on the global picture.

yogi also brought to the board a broader subject: being very skilled at graphics doesn't make you a UX (User eXperience) designer. This is an entirely different skillset. Some times, the people who make the graphics are very proficient at it, but still, they're not full-time UX designers. Some of the stuff he pointed out is just UX 101. I teach such things to my students during the first month of class (yes, UX is my day job). Ableton and Native Instruments are probably the only companies that have in-house UX designers... and probably among the few that can afford that.

And actually, it must be terribly difficult to find one. First, because he/she must know a lot about UX and synths (knowing only UX won't cut it). Second, because UX designers are on high demand now, and most times they can be picky about the jobs they get.

TL;DR: yogi made a very valid analysis, giving away his skills for free, and he was just scratching the surface. Urs replied to it in a very professional way, as usual.

[Urs]

Lots of assumptions here as to how we design things. As if we were mouse clicking chickens who got all the other products right by sheer coincidence

I don't think yogi meant to be rude, I think it was just the translation that made it sound that way.

[flocked]

I hope you will make a public test of the interface/Hive 2, so we can give real life feedback instead of guessing what could be better

[Stefken]

Oops, I think somebody might have quoted the wrong post. Like music, design is a creative process and, therefore, the rules only exist to be twisted, bent and flat-out ignored on a whim. If the end result works, that's all that matters and Hive works brilliantly.

There is a big difference between art/graphic design and ux design.
UX design is rule based to a large extend. Why? Because it's based on how our brain works.

There is still plenty of space for creativity though.

[Urs]

Because it's based on how our brain works.

Creature of habit more so than logical apparatus.

Some people talk about UX design as if it's the holy grail of everything. But then, it's trying to rationalize intuition, which it often enough fails upon. In a much longer debate I'd arrive at the question "why would you learn to play piano if you could as well press play on the CD player?".

I don't want to step on anyone's foot, but as an industrial designer I've always thought of UX design as a supplementary skill. I can not imagine separating form from experience.

[Stefken]

Because it's based on how our brain works.

Creature of habit more so than logical apparatus.

Some people talk about UX design as if it's the holy grail of everything. But then, it's trying to rationalize intuition, which it often enough fails upon. In a much longer debate I'd arrive at the question "why would you learn to play piano if you could as well press play on the CD player?".

I don't want to step on anyone's foot, but as an industrial designer I've always thought of UX design as a supplementary skill. I can not imagine separating form from experience.

It don't really understand what you are trying to say here.
But i'm sure UX design is not a thing of intuition; it has to be learned.

I don't consider the 'rules' as absolute. They are just the starting point.
Just like any element in software design, a UX design has to be analysed, designed, tested and revised.
So both on the graphic level and the UX level you will have to go through plenty of iterations, based on assessments of the design.

And yes, I guess the rules can't always account for everything.
But the elements that Yogi pointed out are basic UX rules and there is really no point in not following them. The good thing is that these are also quite easy to fix.

Holy grail? Well, I guess some people can get enthoustic about it.
But it's just a synth and nobody is going to die if you make an error.
But it's not a coincidence that there has been that much research regarding the design of cars and planes. As a faulty UX design, WILL lead to death in these situations, so it's certainly very important there. And a faulty web design, can lead to a lot of loss of income.

Something completely different. There is this guy that discovered that people buy a lot of milkshakes in the morning to pass the time in the car going to work. They changed to formula in the morning so that the milkshake is even more 'solid' so people are even longer occupied in the car. It lead to a dramatic increase in sales. Sometimes a little thing can matter a lot.

[Urs]

But i'm sure UX design is not a thing of intuition; it has to be learned.

I was not saying that. What I'm saying is this: UX design ideally tries to make user interfaces that people can use intuitively. However, human intuition is not easily defined by rules.

Thus, yes, some rules are starting points.

However, if we follow all the great examples of UX design in Hive we end up with a christmas tree.

Anyhow. Any screenshots were obviously work in progress. There's no need to go in depth with them as basis.

[Robmobius]

Um... Sorry.

But I like the previous UI for HIVE.

[aMUSEd]

But i'm sure UX design is not a thing of intuition; it has to be learned.

I was not saying that. What I'm saying is this: UX design ideally tries to make user interfaces that people can use intuitively. However, human intuition is not easily defined by rules.

Speaking with my psychologist hat on there are some perceptual and cognitive principles that underly good design (speaking in general terms here, my area is more inclusive design for disability not GUIs). In particular the concepts of affordance, transparency, use of constraints and error prevention are well established principles. When people talk of a design being 'intuitive' they are usually meaning these sort of things (see Don Norman's 'The design of everyday things')

[Stefken]

But i'm sure UX design is not a thing of intuition; it has to be learned.

I was not saying that. What I'm saying is this: UX design ideally tries to make user interfaces that people can use intuitively. However, human intuition is not easily defined by rules.

Speaking with my psychologist hat on there are some perceptual and cognitive principles that underly good design (speaking in general terms here, my area is more inclusive design for disability not GUIs). In particular the concepts of affordance, transparency, use of constraints and error prevention are well established principles. When people talk of a design being 'intuitive' they are usually meaning these sort of things (see Don Norman's 'The design of everyday things')

+1

[Urs]

But i'm sure UX design is not a thing of intuition; it has to be learned.

I was not saying that. What I'm saying is this: UX design ideally tries to make user interfaces that people can use intuitively. However, human intuition is not easily defined by rules.

Speaking with my psychologist hat on there are some perceptual and cognitive principles that underly good design (speaking in general terms here, my area is more inclusive design for disability not GUIs). In particular the concepts of affordance, transparency, use of constraints and error prevention are well established principles. When people talk of a design being 'intuitive' they are usually meaning these sort of things (see Don Norman's 'The design of everyday things')

I must admit, I don't even know what "affordance, transparency, use of constraints" mean in terms of UI design. But then, I come from an industrial design background.

Nevertheless, the most intuitive user interface is often also the one which is the most creatively constraining. In a synth it might be an interface which guides the user step-by-step from an init sound to the desired result. It operates the human, but the human does not operate the software. This is pretty good for vending machines and stuff, but it's poison for experienced users. I exaggerate, I know that no-one is asking anything like it.

Humans can learn, they even like to get better at things. When people talk about UX design I often have the impression that this aspect is neglected. It's as if a good UI is only good if it's fully understood at first glimpse. As if "routine" is good and "experience" (in the sense of developing skills) is bad. But that's not my understanding of good UX design, it omits the learning factor.

For me it's totally okay if someone needs to spend a day or two with an interface before he or she "gets it" - if it makes the interface faster to work with and allows us to avoid the christmas tree problem (every widget begging for attention and yelling at us all the time about what it is).

[pdxindy]

Why? Because it's based on how our brain works.

What a huge discussion that opens.

Based on how the brain works (should be how it is currently working according to a limited understanding) leads to stagnation and homogenization... a lack of diversity and creativity.

[vurt]

you do not want a synth based on how my brain works