VST GUI Rant

[McLilith]

Why the hell do almost all the "realistic looking" GUIs look more diffuse and blurry than a 70's centerfold shot by Bob Guccione?

Professional photographers, lighting engineers, ergonomic engineers, and other professionals put a lot of effort into minimizing obtrusive glare on things like control panels. So, why do so many GUIs have obtrusive glare intentionally added to areas such as LCDs, glass windows over meters, etc?

Also, people who design things like lighted LCD panels and lighted meters spend a fair amount of time and effort trying to get the lighting on these devices as even as possible. Of course, many LCDs and meters don't achieve totally even lighting, but in the hardware world this is considered a flaw. So, why do so many GUI designers insist on making the "lighting" of their fake LCDs and meters look so spotty and uneven?

In the world of hardware, all these issues are things to avoid whenever possible, but in the VST plugin world, they are sported like a badge of honor or something.

Is no one interested in legibility, and dare I say it, quality?

Okay, I've said it. Now, I can get back to what I was doing...



McLilith

[jtxx000]

Would this have anything to do with Arturia?

[jtxx000]

I agree completely btw...

[Lunch Money]

Gotta agree.

[useruseruser]

Why is this so... bla bla bla...

Perhaps this is because the limited digital pixel resolution of computer based graphical devices ?
And obviously it isn't so easy to fill your claims.

A simple question: Did you ever try to get a sharp antialiased photorealistic computer grphic (like a 3D emulation) with an resonable (usefull) monitor display size yourself? And with an resonable usage of GDI resources ?

Did you ever work (for weeks) with photorealistic 3D rendering software ?

Probably nothing of this.
Because then you would know, how difficult it is for a computer graphics designer and any developer to achieve this. And how time consuming this is. Morely, those circumstances limit you in fact in creativity.

Also to consider: Some users even use 800 x 600 or less resolution today (even on laptops), while others use 14534524525 x 15252522782 pixel monitors...

So there *must* be a compromise anyhow. Right?

And if you finally want to closely emulate hardware in software, so you even have to design it as close as possible (with all the disadvantages and limitations).

There are obviously allot of people, who enjoy this kind of emulation mania and ask for this.

Good and intuitive GUI design is a science or at least an kind of art. If you are such a perfectionistic men, who can do it better, so simply just do it or show us how it works...

(Or at least show us *concrete* examples of what you want and what not, because your rant is a substanceless generalization.)

.

[McLilith]

Why is this so... bla bla bla...

Perhaps this is because the limited digital pixel resolution of computer based graphical devices ???

Limited resolution has nothing to do with poor use of available tonal range, obscuring GUI elements with artificially generated "glare", or purposely simulating uneven backlighting to the point of impairing legibility.

A simple question: Did you ever try to get an sharp antialiased photorealistic scratch (like a 3D emulation) with an resonable (usefull) monitor display size yourself? And with an resonable usage of GDI resources ???

A scratch?

Do I really need a scratch on my GUI?

Why???

Probably not. Because then you would know, how difficult it is for a computer graphics designer and any developer to achieve this. Morely, those circumstances limit you in fact in creativity.

Don't be so quick to make assumptions about my knowledge, talent, or skill levels. I know for a fact that a great many GUIs could be made much more legible than they currently are. I've edited screen captures of GUIs in Photoshop, just to make sure I wasn't imagining things, and I know for a fact that the legibility of the GUI can almost always be improved upon. The difference usually isn't subtle either. It's often quite dramatic.

Also to consider: Some users even use 800 x 600 or less resolution today (even on laptops), while others use 14534524525 x 152525222 pixel monitors...

Please show me a VST user with a 14534524525 x 152525222 monitor. You're engaging in hype. Let's try to remain realistic.

And if you finally want to closely emulate hardware in software, so you even have to design it as close as possible (with all disadvantages).

I can understand that a person wanting to emulate the performance a classic piece of audio equipment might want to emulate all the little idiosyncrasies of the original. However, does this have to include things such as emulating poor room lighting? If there is a sheet of glare obscuring a meter or other element of the control panel, it is the fault of poor room lighting. Why is a sheet of glare so commonly found on "glass" elements in a GUI?

There are obviously allot of people, who enjoy this kind of emulation mania.

Fine. I realize that a lot of people love the visual emulation of classic gear, but don't you think those people would like to see all their classic gear recreated in pristine condition, and not obscured by poor graphics quality?

I also want to make it clear that when I referred to hardware in my first post, it wasn't to suggest that a GUI needs to look like a hardware control panel. I was simply trying to point out that many GUIs employ design elements that would be considered flaws in the hardware world. There are very interesting GUIs which look nothing like traditional hardware, and would be very impressive, except many of them still suffer from this lack of attention to legibility. I don't care too much whether a GUI emulates the look of hardware or not. What I do care about is making it as legible as possible.


take care,
McLilith

[Spe3D]

Commercial photography = remove glass at all costs, before taking the shot, bloody stuff.

But in a computer why have the authentic feel in a gui, it’s a whole new area for music, and getting more powerful, more advanced – the guis need to catch up a lot in this respect.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[McLilith]

Good and intuitive GUI design is a science or at least an kind of art. If you are such a perfectionistic men, who can do it better, so simply just do it or show us how it works...

Why are you so convinced that I couldn't improve upon the legibility of the typical VST GUI? Is it because you aren't able to, and you wouldn't want to admit that anyone else might be able to succeed where you can't?

(Or at least show us *concrete* examples of what you want and what not, because your rant is a substanceless generalization.)
.

Find a few manufacturers that will give me permission to publish enhanced versions of their GUI, and I'll give you some examples of GUIs with enhanced legibility.

Why is this so... bla bla bla...

...and you called my comments "substanceless"?

Admit it. You just want to stomp on my dream of a more perfect world, don't you?


McLilith

[Lunch Money]

I think he just missed the point. He thought you were complaining that graphic designers don't take enough care with making their effects 'clear', when your point was that they shouldn't bother with such silly effects in the first place.



Greg

[o'malley]

Why the hell do almost all the "realistic looking" GUIs look more diffuse and blurry than a 70's centerfold shot by Bob Guccione?

Dont worry, I think it's just a fad. You know, like back in the 80's when they used to sell jeans with the holes already in the knees... ah the good old days...

[McLilith]

But in a computer why have the authentic feel in a gui, it’s a whole new area for music, and getting more powerful, more advanced – the guis need to catch up a lot in this respect.

I don't really care too much whether or not a GUI emulates anything else (such as a vintage analog synth control panel), but I do want a GUI to be as legible as possible. Far too many GUIs today are not nearly as legible as they could be, and this applies to all styles of GUI from retro emulations, to innovative and futuristic creations.


take care,
McLilith

[McLilith]

He thought you were complaining that graphic designers don't take enough care with making their effects 'clear', when your point was that they shouldn't bother with such silly effects in the first place.

Actually some of the effects are okay, if used in moderation. For example, a small highlight at the very edge of a glass panel can help with aesthetics, without harming the legibility of the LCD or meter in question. A slight amount of uneven lighting, intelligently applied, can make a backlight meter look a little more "retro" and perhaps a little more appealing in a nostalgic sense, but the effect needs to be used in moderation, or legibility is impaired.


take care,
McLilith

[BONES]

Got any specifics? 'cause I've never seen any that are so bad as to interfere with the proper function of the thing.

[x_bruce]

Or anything you think are good examples?

You beat me to it Bones.

[ouroboros]

Why the hell do almost all the "realistic looking" GUIs look more diffuse and blurry than a 70's centerfold shot by Bob Guccione?
Professional photographers, lighting engineers, ergonomic engineers, and other professionals put a lot of effort into minimizing obtrusive glare on things like control panels. So, why do so many GUIs have obtrusive glare intentionally added to areas such as LCDs, glass windows over meters, etc?
Also, people who design things like lighted LCD panels and lighted meters spend a fair amount of time and effort trying to get the lighting on these devices as even as possible. Of course, many LCDs and meters don't achieve totally even lighting, but in the hardware world this is considered a flaw. So, why do so many GUI designers insist on making the "lighting" of their fake LCDs and meters look so spotty and uneven?

In the world of hardware, all these issues are things to avoid whenever possible, but in the VST plugin world, they are sported like a badge of honor or something.

Is no one interested in legibility, and dare I say it, quality?

Okay, I've said it. Now, I can get back to what I was doing...



McLilith

While I don't dispute your point, it is funny that these same arguments would sound really funny if applied to hardware v. software oscillators ----why are we trying to reproduce hardware flaws? _I like a cleeeeen sound damnit! cleaner than real life!

sorry to intrude, it's late and I am losing my self-censoring ability........