Why you left Ableton?

[thecontrolcentre]

I still find the smaller faders easier to see than the little arrow in Live. I always found that little arrow hard to see at a glance.

I found a skin for Live that puts a bright yellow "arrow" at the top of each fader. Much easier to see at a glance.

[apoclypse]

I'm saying that it's a button that has no universally agreed upon icon so a computer monitor makes as much sense as a wrench. You find it once, you know it forever.

Do you think Bitwig is impervious to UX blunders? Curious, because if you think UX isn't important, then that's that, nothing to talk about.

You and others chime in on one of many issues UX wise I pointed out. The one you think you have the most chance of pointing out as me being foolish, but this is to me anyway simply debate tactics, not about the topic as much as an emotional response to what's perceived as an attack.

Do you also think 1/4 screen faders are a good idea? There are plenty of undebatable points I brought up, and for people to freak out about me thinking a screen/monitor icon is a silly VST icon out of all the points I made screams more about the sensitivity people have to opposing opinions than anything else.

Plus, what are all you Bitwig fanboys doing defending Bitwigs honor™ in a thread about leaving Ableton for christs sake!?? Against percieved attacks by someone who just recently purchased and is using said DAW?

Bitwig definitely has some UX issues but some of the stuff you brought up is subjective and are not UX blunders.

The icon is not a UX blunder. It's consistently implemented throughout the whole of the application and once you've clicked it once it's immediately understood what it does. That's good UX design imo.

The faders. Would I like resizable faders sure, but faders being a consistent size is also not a bad thing. Logic's mixer for example does not have resizable/adaptive faders if I'm not mistaken. I haven't used Protools in a long time but I think it doesn't either.

[oonabe]

I know preferring UI design is mostly subjective and after seeing how some people might find Bitwig's UI better and others - like me - might prefer Ableton Live's flat design, I wonder how many people actually care about how an instrument or software looks when making music.

We aren't all the same and maybe for some people how the UI looks and it's organized doesn't matter too much but other people, and I belong here, might find UI design a very important part of a software application.

When I bought my guitars I did pay attention to their design apart from their features, I also did when I bought my keyboards and I do too when I choose a DAW, a VST plugin or any other piece of software. It's not that it is the most important piece of the whole for me to take a decision but it is definitely not irrelevant.

For me how the tool looks with which I make music can have a significant weight on my inspiration when writing and working on my songs or even if I feel like opening the software and feel like working with it is having fun or rather feels like I am working extra hours at home after my regular job.

I guess I'm not the only one who feels this way and for me personally there are DAWs that look and are more inspiring than others, and maybe you think this is stupid but I don't, remember, what works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone too.

[apoclypse]

I know preferring UI design is mostly subjective and after seeing how some people might find Bitwig's UI better and others - like me - might prefer Ableton Live's flat design, I wonder how many people actually care about how an instrument or software looks when making music.

We aren't all the same and maybe for some people how the UI looks and it's organized doesn't matter too much but other people, and I belong here, might find UI design a very important part of a software application.

When I bought my guitars I did pay attention to their design apart from their features, I also did when I bought my keyboards and I do too when I choose a DAW, a VST plugin or any other piece of software. It's not that it is the most important piece of the whole for me to take a decision but it is definitely not irrelevant.

For me how the tool looks with which I make music can have a significant weight on my inspiration when writing and working on my songs or even if I feel like opening the software and feel like working with it is having fun or rather feels like I am working extra hours at home after my regular job.

I guess I'm not the only one who feels this way and for me personally there are DAWs that look and are more inspiring than others, and maybe you think this is stupid but I don't, remember, what works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone too.

I agree for the most part. An example I won't touch Reaper. I can't get over the Win 3.1 interface on non-themable parts, overloaded menus and terrible design UI design choices.

But the thing is that what people consider a good looking UI is subjective. I love Studio One's interface but I hear people constantly talk about how ugly it is. I personally think it looks great even going all the way back to 2.x.

I did not like Bitwig's 1.x interface. I thought it was ugly and badly designed in general. 2.x fix a lot of the issues I have with it over time and now the interface is actually pretty nice looking, easily readable, and fairly easy to use. Does it look as minimalistic and "clean" as Ableton, no. But compared to other DAWs like Cubase, Logic, etc its actually pretty good in a lot of ways.

[machinesworking]

Bitwig definitely has some UX issues but some of the stuff you brought up is subjective and are not UX blunders.

The icon is not a UX blunder. It's consistently implemented throughout the whole of the application and once you've clicked it once it's immediately understood what it does. That's good UX design imo.

Except it's not consistent. In no other DAW that I've seen are the symbols for keys and audio used to denote input monitoring, as well as the plug ins in the browser... but opening a plug in GUI is shown as a monitor... I never said Bitwig was terrible UX, just that it has some of the odd insider information level quirks that DAWs much older than it have.

The faders. Would I like resizable faders sure, but faders being a consistent size is also not a bad thing. Logic's mixer for example does not have resizable/adaptive faders if I'm not mistaken. I haven't used Protools in a long time but I think it doesn't either.

The faders are a bit smaller than others, that's all. What's nuts to me is they're even smaller than the Inspector panels fader. Bitwig should kipe the ability to increment the faders by left/right arrows from Live IMO. It's not a major concern for me, because Möss made such a fantastic script for Bitwig with Push2, and I haven't really had to use the faders much, but I would love for a half or full screen fader setting, especially for touch screens.

[Jace-BeOS]

I know preferring UI design is mostly subjective and after seeing how some people might find Bitwig's UI better and others - like me - might prefer Ableton Live's flat design, I wonder how many people actually care about how an instrument or software looks when making music.

We aren't all the same and maybe for some people how the UI looks and it's organized doesn't matter too much but other people, and I belong here, might find UI design a very important part of a software application.

The thing is, UI design is not just about looks. Looks are definitely subjective. Functionality is not.

Functionality is actually fairly objective for human-computer interfacing, and there’s research to back this up. However, because people DO emotionally attach to appearances, and people CAN get used to things (regardless of how badly made they are), it SEEMS like it’s all entirely subjective.

(Edit: and yes, appearances are definitely PART of functionality.)

I won’t even go into details because I’ll have to justify myself and defend myself and no one will listen to whatever research I cite, so... I’ll try to stop here.

Just... yeah... design matters and it’s not just about looks.

[tooneba]

This is driving me crazy since I began to use Live.

Let's edit this midi.


Opps, too small.


Ok, resize.


Close it and let's edit this audio.


Okay.... I don't need this large waveform preview...


Resize. Now I can see the context in the timeline while editing.


Close it. I want to edit this midi now.


Seriously?


Resize. Now you can see the accessible editor.


I do this chore infinite times while finishing a single project Oh dear, just remember the height.

[antic604]

Oh dear, just remember the height.

Doesn't it for particular track, though?

That's why I like how Bitwig did it - if I want to edit in a small window (because I know it's enough) I just double-click the clip, but if I want big one I select the clip and Shift+Tab to full screen editor. Still not perfect, but a bit more predictable.

[antic604]

I wonder how many people actually care about how an instrument or software looks when making music.

I do. Actually (and I'm not proud of it!) I might get an instrument or FX because of how it looks if it sounds decent enough, but ALSO might avoid great sounding device if it looks bad.

Examples? I didn't get Zebra and Serum until fairly recently, when both got new skins that finally looked great.

[Teneyetus]

Exporting to pro tools, was not good.

[Teneyetus]

Stereo stems for mono instruments, bad. But a let on as a program is pretty sweet altogether. Different way of thinking

[antic604]

Except it's not consistent. In no other DAW that I've seen are the symbols for keys and audio used to denote input monitoring, as well as the plug ins in the browser... but opening a plug in GUI is shown as a monitor... I never said Bitwig was terrible UX, just that it has some of the odd insider information level quirks that DAWs much older than it have.

Look at it from the perspective of different design paradigm: the icons are representing TYPE of signal and are placed in an AREA that determines the action to be performed with that signal. So for example:
- in Browser which purpose is to load things piano roll icon represents MIDI instruments and waveform represents audio samples,
- in Inspector Panel in area dedicated to routing piano roll represents (monitoring of) MIDI signal and waveform or audio signal.

If they used a "speaker" icon instead (as an example) it would suggest it enables / disables the audio, which is not at all what it's doing for MIDI - it disables monitoring of MIDI coming into the channel, not the audio coming out.


And for the last time - the "monitor" icon is not that, it's a "computer window" icon and represents showing "more details / info" in a separate pop-up window for the selected device, which in case of plugins is the plugin GUI and in case of native devices is the extended display.

If anything Live's inconsistent here, using two different icons for functionally the same feature: "show more of this device". But I'm not saying that - both approaches are equally valid design principles, IMO. You just got used to one of them and are not open to accept validity of the other one.

[antic604]

Stereo stems for mono instruments, bad.

I could never understand it (also with regards to Bitwig) - why is this considered "bad"?

If stereo sample has the same information on both channels it sounds EXACTLY the same as mono sample.

[oonabe]

But the thing is that what people consider a good looking UI is subjective.

Totally agree

The thing is, UI design is not just about looks. Looks are definitely subjective. Functionality is not.

Functionality is actually fairly objective for human-computer interfacing, and there’s research to back this up. However, because people DO emotionally attach to appearances, and people CAN get used to things (regardless of how badly made they are), it SEEMS like it’s all entirely subjective.

(Edit: and yes, appearances are definitely PART of functionality.)

I won’t even go into details because I’ll have to justify myself and defend myself and no one will listen to whatever research I cite, so... I’ll try to stop here.

Just... yeah... design matters and it’s not just about looks.

Yeah I get that point though I wouldn't say functionality is objective, human logic doesn't always work the same way and as someone mentioned here before, an icon might look confusing for some people that for some other people might be easy to understand, and that's just an icon...

So speaking about how to design an interface for the user to navigate through menus or put effects on a chain or edit midi isn't objective either... that's actually a thing where devs and graphic designers and CEOs have to think a lot about and most often if not always there are different views supported by different logical ways of thinking.

To name an example, Reason set the preferences in their menu under the Edit tab while Live did under the Options tab, which one of the two is objectively the right choice? I can tell you already, none of them, because it depends on how each individual thinks about it. And so it happens with most functional decisions when making software programs.

I wonder how many people actually care about how an instrument or software looks when making music.

I do. Actually (and I'm not proud of it!) I might get an instrument or FX because of how it looks if it sounds decent enough, but ALSO might avoid great sounding device if it looks bad.

Examples? I didn't get Zebra and Serum until fairly recently, when both got new skins that finally looked great.

I'm not proud but not ashamed of it either, I know it might sound superficial but for me music is just another way to express one self artistically, to communicate, and in arts aesthetics are very present if not completely necessary.

In my case, it's not like I am going to stop purchasing something I like just because it looks ugly, I do own some "ugly" software but if it does something I can't find elsewhere and I think I could make a good use of it I'll buy it.

Other thing is if I find two pieces of software that give me more or less the same result but the one looks nice and there one doesn't, then the looks might end up putting a little bit more weight on the balance and the decision is made.

And well, there are also cases where a plugin or software looks better and does better the things I need from it, I don't mean does things in general better, but why should I care about a lot of additional features I never use if another piece of software has the features I need and implements them in a way I also prefer? I think that should be always what people should pay attention to instead of buying this or praising that because most people do

[machinesworking]

...Bitwig is very arguably worse than Live UX wise. The caveat to that is Bitwig looks to be from my observations much better once you understand it's UX, i.e. it's a bigger learning curve, but better user experience once you get over it's initial rough spots and idiosyncrasies.

Well, isn't that the case for most software? Especially in a field as abstract as music production? I really doubt you understood everything about Live first time you sat to it, not to mention that now you're looking at anything else through the lens of Live experience and its UI design paradigms. Which BTW (those paradigms) you'd surely call "rough spots and idiosyncracies" had you used other, traditional DAW before it.

A lot of assumptions here. I used: Logic, DP, Reason and Cubase before ever seeing Live. Live had almost zero learning curve for me. There are a lot of issues I can bring up about Live for sure, but an intuitive UX isn't really one of them. Where Live ends up failing IMO is that all of that UX ease of use upon initial use, is pretty much all you get. Live is all about mousing around, not too many keyboard shortcuts and not too many new features that come at you after the first 6-9 months of using it.Toonba nails the interface problems in the post right before me! Max 4 Live is where you have to go for shocking new features etc. (From an end user perspective I think it's pretty safe to say the Grid is easily more intuitive than M4L. Bitwig is a good medium between the extremes of Live for sure.)

Compare this to DP, Logic, Cubase, (and I'm pretty sure Bitwig), where you end up a year later being much much faster at doing pretty much any task. Even Ableton tutorials, you just never see people flying around the interface.

Look at it from the perspective of different design paradigm: the icons are representing TYPE of signal and are placed in an AREA that determines the action to be performed with that signal. So for example:
- in Browser which purpose is to load things piano roll icon represents MIDI instruments and waveform represents audio samples,
- in Inspector Panel in area dedicated to routing piano roll represents (monitoring of) MIDI signal and waveform or audio signal.

Here's the deal though, again, (and I'm going to assume you weren't trying to load the favor towards your argument here by choosing another icon I never mentioned in a speaker, although Reaper of all UX nightmares uses it for input monitoring very well),all of this is taking big explanations, there is no confusion for anyone in Reaper or Ableton Live as to where the input monitoring is. A monitor screen took this huge explanation as to why it's a good choice, something like a electrical plug in icon to denote both built in and embedded plug ins takes no explanation at all. As it stands in the browser you still get little 'vst' font on the piano key and audio waveform icons.
I get what they were trying to achieve UX wise, I just don't think it was that successful. I'm under no illusion that any of this is easy, but again I'm also as usual surprised at how much traction this one trivial observation is getting. It's not absolutely terrible, but it requires knowing the programs own idiosyncratic ideas on how to implement the features, it's flatly an area where Live's UX is better, and I don't think that's arguable at all. Bitwig again seems to sit in the middle, between Live's super easy intuitive but dumbed down interface and something like Cubase, Logic or DP's complex and obtuse interfaces.