Hive 2 is coming!

[vurt]

Looking at an interface is no different to looking at a beautiful woman

[Hink]

that didn't take long

[vurt]

im good at what i do.

[Stefken]

im good at what i do.

Have you met John Cleese yet?

[vurt]

no

[Stefken]

Well, from a quick view on Wikipedia I'd say that I just use different terms in a different language.

the basic principles of ergonomics for industrial design are the same.

Sorry, offtopic, I know, it's just that I could talk and read about these subjects for hours.

UX, ergonomics, it's all the same shit too me (to say it in Vurt lingo).
But don't stop on my account.

Actually, an UX subforum would be nice idea. Why don't we have that?

[Hink]

you could suggest it in the site stuff forum

[Vertion]

Definitely excited to see the new gui.

2019-03-09 16.41.09.png

[PieBerger]

Definitely excited to see the new gui.

2019-03-09 16.41.09.png

[aMUSEd]

Definitely excited to see the new gui.

2019-03-09 16.41.09.png

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

[BONES]

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

I think that's something we can all agree upon.

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.

UX design is about websites and apps, the rules are very, very different (unless you want to go back to early iOS design). There is no better example than the hexagon - difficult to use effectively in web design (unless HTML 5 has changed that, I've not done any web design in a long time) but perfectly usable as part of a VSTi interface.

I've always thought of UX design as a supplementary skill. I can not imagine separating form from experience.

This. As I said, it's more about web design and stupid phone apps but people try to take the principles and apply them where they don't necessarily belong.

But the elements that Yogi pointed out are basic UX rules and there is really no point in not following them.

I can think of two, right off the top of my head. First, it looks cool and looking cool is more important in designing for a VSTi than it would be for doing an accountant's website or Android app. MOstly devs make all the knobs the same because it's easier than making half-a-dozen different ones, not because it will be more intuitive for the user. Quite the opposite - sliders for envelopes, knobs for cutoff and resonance, for example, are well established conventions that aid intuitiveness for musicians but might confuse lay folk so, therefore, should be avoided in web/app design. The second one comes out of the first, in that if it looks cool it might spark your creativity, which is a really good thing in a VSTi but the last thing you want from your accountant (or the accountant from his clients).

The good thing is that these are also quite easy to fix.

If you want it to be boring and uninspiring, which nobody buying a VSTi does (I hope).

Speaking with my psychologist hat on …

I don't think I could trust a psychologist in a hat.

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')

The essential difference here, of course, is that we are not talking about everyday things, we are talking about things that absolutely require a level of expert knowledge. The perfect example that has been brought up is cars and aircraft - the former is simplified so that any idiot can get behind the wheel of any car and drive it. OTOH, pilots need to be qualified individually for each aircraft type they are going to fly, so the design rules there will take into account a large quantity of assumed knowledge, which is why an aircraft cockpit can seem intimidating to a lay person but will make perfect sense to a pilot, sort of like when "normals" look at a 32 track mixing desk and are overwhelmed by it, yet it makes perfect sense to those of us with a bit of knowledge.

Another great example would be the way ARP laid out their UIs. Where everyone else tended to follow the signal path, ARP tried to group things together in a way that helped musicians on stage to move from one parameter to the next more easily. So if someone with no prior knowledge of synthesisers came upon it, they might find it easier to use than a Roland synth, for example, but for those of us who were used to the way literally everyone else had been doing it, ARP stuff was/is quite a challenge. So there's a dilemma - do you design for novices or people who know what they are doing? In UX design for web and apps, you will always go with the former but here, in VSTi design, you will skew very heavily towards the latter, which frees you up to do all sorts of things you'd never consider in mainstream "UX" land.

[Ploki]

valid points about convention vs "smart design".
virtual instrument world is still plagued with skeumorphism as well (something that's been off the table for years for everything else) but i'm not sure if completely abandoning it works all that well.
Some pulled it off better (Fabfilter) than the others (valhalla).

also, a flat design can look confusing and half-assed in a sea of knobs and dials.
i like what izotope is doing but the GUI feels clunky... laggy.. fabfilter works perfect, and frankly, so does u-he.
fxpansion gui which is "flattened skeumorphism" imo works clunky as well.
10-20ms lag on mouseovers and animation is killing me

[Stefken]

But the elements that Yogi pointed out are basic UX rules and there is really no point in not following them.

I can think of two, right off the top of my head. First, it looks cool and looking cool is more important in designing for a VSTi than it would be for doing an accountant's website or Android app. MOstly devs make all the knobs the same because it's easier than making half-a-dozen different ones, not because it will be more intuitive for the user. Quite the opposite - sliders for envelopes, knobs for cutoff and resonance, for example, are well established conventions that aid intuitiveness for musicians but might confuse lay folk so, therefore, should be avoided in web/app design. The second one comes out of the first, in that if it looks cool it might spark your creativity, which is a really good thing in a VSTi but the last thing you want from your accountant (or the accountant from his clients).

Yes, UX (or ergonomics for that matter) is mainly taskdriven. What is the most efficient man-machine interface that we can provide in either software (UX) or hardware (ergo). Something that is easy to perceive/ process, something that has no conflict with our 'natural' responses and is instead in line with them, something we can easily create a mental model of, etc etc.

The principals of proper ordering and grouping are important towards that paradigm.
If you want to make it more inspiring that' s cool (see my comment below) but what will be your guiding principles?

There is a big difference between an chaotic interface and an inspiring one.
Giving elements that have the same behavior a different appearance, and vice versa is just adding confusion, not inspiration.
You will have to do better than that to create an inspiring interface.

Another great example would be the way ARP laid out their UIs. Where everyone else tended to follow the signal path, ARP tried to group things together in a way that helped musicians on stage to move from one parameter to the next more easily. So if someone with no prior knowledge of synthesisers came upon it, they might find it easier to use than a Roland synth, for example, but for those of us who were used to the way literally everyone else had been doing it, ARP stuff was/is quite a challenge. So there's a dilemma - do you design for novices or people who know what they are doing? In UX design for web and apps, you will always go with the former but here, in VSTi design, you will skew very heavily towards the latter, which frees you up to do all sorts of things you'd never consider in mainstream "UX" land.

When making a design it's important to define your goals and personas. What kind of person am I making this interface for. It is a 'player' that wants easy access playing live on stage? Is it a person that wants to create in a playfull way and maybe without much knowledge of music theory?
These are totaly different concepts. Most interfaces will steer (again) towards efficiency but there are some creative ones around (like synplant, aparillo).
I think vsti's could have a future here as there are less limits in software than in hardware.
Off course we would need some guiding principles. Does anybody know about any research regarding that?

[joris.roling]

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

[Teksonik]

Do you people even know what you're arguing about anymore ? What is your point again ?

Why are people who have never designed anything trying to school someone who has already designed several plugin interfaces that have been quite popular and highly functional over the years ?