VST GUI Rant

[useruseruser]

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.
McLilith

OK, perhaps I missed the point.

But if YOU really are this Mr. Perfect (can all, know all) , than you woun't have any problems to find such munufacturers yourself...

Or is your intention merely to rant generalized? (Your many replays didn't give any concrete examples - once again).

Or do you think, they will come to YOU because your generalized ranting, your not prooven claims or your big mouth or what?

Maybe a case of acute self-over-judging...

That's really funny !

So show us something of your work, please.
People like you are always anyhow suspect to me. And yes, it's therefore ...bla bla bla... to me.

.

[drfx]

I agree with McLilith's rant totally! Many GUIs are just blurry and useless (check Arturia's stuff! or Sytrus' waveshaper section). If more people were using VSTs live, this would be a serious issue. I want to see my parameters!!! But there are good GUIs out there both 2d and 3d: Reaktor, Synth 1, reFx, concreteFX, etc...

[Majken]

Amen!

It's horrible to see gui's that don't fit in 1024x768 and still are blurry and hard to read. If you for some reason want a somewhat authentic hardware look, go for something flat and simple.

Take a look at NI Pro-53, you can clearly see what synth it's supposed to resemeble, the text is easy to read and the GUI is small and handy.

If you've got a gazillion parameters, work with subpanels and such where you get some easy to use controls on the front page for quick sound shaping and the advanced stuff further down.

It strikes me as amusing how people spend massive amount of money on big monitors and quick DAW's to waste it all on a handful of badly optimized and bloated plugins.

/Majken

[glurgle]

fwiw the best GUI I've ever seen was for the Stepforms beta. It was a remake of ModulR's Stepchild step sequencer, but done up in JUCE, and the whole thing was resizable*. There was still some tweaking to do, but it was a bloody beautiful thing. (I get a bit when I remember that the author is going through some hard times and is unable to keep working on it)

I think that's the next big step, vector based GUIs that are totally resizable. The whole hardware emulation style just doesn't stack up to that kind of flexibility. (in my opinion anyways)

* - as in you could shrink it down to say, 100x100 pixels, or expand it fill your whole screen (no matter the resolution)

[meister eder]

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.
McLilith

OK, perhaps I missed the point.

But if YOU really are this Mr. Perfect (can all, know all) , than you woun't have any problems to find such munufacturers yourself...

Or is your intention merely to rant generalized? (Your many replays didn't give any concrete examples - once again).

Or do you think, they will come to YOU because your generalized ranting, your not prooven claims or your big mouth or what?

Maybe a case of acute self-over-judging...

That's really funny !

So show us something of your work, please.
People like you are always anyhow suspect to me. And yes, it's therefore ...bla bla bla... to me.

.

I can not belive it!

Since a few days, whatever thread I open to read, there is at least one post by Jackle&Hyde where he's bitching around with his arrogant generalized remarks on people's psyche and personality.

Bah!

[dystonia_ek]

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.)

.

Um, I'm a graphic design professional, and I agree with McLilith on this one - function should define form in this case. Many GUI designers seem to get far too wrapped up in the bells and whistles - usability should always be the prime concern.

[useruseruser]

Um, I'm a graphic design professional, and I agree with McLilith on this one - function should define form in this case. Many GUI designers seem to get far too wrapped up in the bells and whistles - usability should always be the prime concern.

That's really fine.
And something is true. But merely to rant is not the key.

BTW: Can you explain me for instance (as a top greaphics designer), where the functionality (even the expedience), for instance, of your website is ?

So much to "bells and whistles"...

.

[Spe3D]

Um, I'm a graphic design professional, and I agree with McLilith on this one - function should define form in this case. Many GUI designers seem to get far too wrapped up in the bells and whistles - usability should always be the prime concern.

That's really fine.
And something is true. But merely to rant is not the key.

BTW: Can you explain me for instance (as a top greaphics designer), where the functionality (even the expedience), for instance, of your website is ?

So much to "bells and whistles"...

.

What is the point you are trying to make in your posts, J&H, so far I am not seeing any .... to them, other than some kind of ramble.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[useruseruser]

Amen!

It's horrible to see gui's that don't fit in 1024x768 and still are blurry and hard to read. If you for some reason want a somewhat authentic hardware look, go for something flat and simple.

Take a look at NI Pro-53, you can clearly see what synth it's supposed to resemeble, the text is easy to read and the GUI is small and handy.

If you've got a gazillion parameters, work with subpanels and such where you get some easy to use controls on the front page for quick sound shaping and the advanced stuff further down.

It strikes me as amusing how people spend massive amount of money on big monitors and quick DAW's to waste it all on a handful of badly optimized and bloated plugins.

/Majken

Yes. There are true things of course.
But the topic starter missed to make any concrete examples, he merely generalized "all hardware simulating GUIs and developers doing that".

And I think, it is a bad game, if I rant about things and same time havin no clue, what a hard work such a piece finally is.

Very often there work entire teams of many many developers, graphic designers amd marketing experts together...

Are they all stupid in your opinion ?

.

[NAD]

Sorry to interrupt the flaming here....

McLilith, could you please post some examples of what you mean? Thanks.

[dystonia_ek]

Um, I'm a graphic design professional, and I agree with McLilith on this one - function should define form in this case. Many GUI designers seem to get far too wrapped up in the bells and whistles - usability should always be the prime concern.

That's really fine.
And something is true. But merely to rant is not the key.

BTW: Can you explain me for instance (as a top greaphics designer), where the functionality (even the expedience), for instance, of your website is ?

So much to "bells and whistles"...

.

My website isn't open yet, and it's an art project, not a conventional music website.

I'm not a GUI designer myself, I work in the film industry.

I fail to see that you are making any rational or consistent points in your posts. Why do you bother?

[useruseruser]

What is the point you are trying to make in your posts, J&H, so far I am not seeing any .... to them, other than some kind of ramble.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

I can say you, what the point is.

Some of you *ramble*, by havin such a stupid idea to abuse hard working folks with generalized shit.

Obviously the most of them have not really a clue, what time and power it consumes to develop good lookin and sounding VST stuff.

This finally comes, because they obviously never did really something nearly equal like that.

Else they would know, that a superb design of software is very often a lucky circumstance, dependant from many things. Its a quite complex task.

Of course, If I merely "desing" software and VST stuff in a purely *imaginary* and *whishy* manner, I probably finally come to such stupid generalized conclusions...

And I drive cracy, if there are persons, who obviously have merely rants, than any acceptable proof of their claims, that they really *can* do it any better.

Criticism is very fine, but then please do this directly to the people, who design the stuff and with concrete suggestions and useful examples.

And if you claim, you can it better, so do the proof and offer your services to those developers.

Why do they this..., why do they that..., do they not see..., are they not able..., are they stupid...

Oh my, what stupid is that?

.

[useruseruser]

Sorry to interrupt the flaming here....

McLilith, could you please post some examples of what you mean? Thanks.

Exactly.
This could enlighten this entire thread.

[Spe3D]

What is the point you are trying to make in your posts, J&H, so far I am not seeing any .... to them, other than some kind of ramble.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

I can say you, what the point is.

Some of you *ramble*, by havin such a stupid idea to abuse hard working folks with generalized shit.

Obviously the most of them have not really a clue, what time and power it consumes to develop good lookin and sounding VST stuff.

This finally comes, because they obviously never did really something nearly equal like that.

Else they would know, that a superb design of software is very often a lucky circumstance, dependant from many things. Its a quite complex task.

Of course, If I merely "desing" software and VST stuff in a purely *imaginary* and *whishy* manner, I probably finally come to such stupid generalized conclusions...

And I drive cracy, if there are persons, who obviously have merely rants, than any acceptable proof of their claims, that they really *can* do it any better.

Criticism is very fine, but then please do this directly to the people, who design the stuff and with concrete suggestions and useful examples.

And if you claim, you can it better, so do the proof and offer your services to those developers.

Why do they this..., why do they that..., do they not see..., are they not able..., are they stupid...

Oh my, what stupid is that?

.

Quite often developers who have ‘issues’ with graphics working correctly (ergonomically) in their products – turn down offers – even free ones – to make the gui work in a user efficient way.

I wont point out developers in this thread – but they often want full control over their own work, from the algos and how they tie in with the controls to interface with the gui.

You come across as a participant of the *ramble* in an equal measure, imo. In how you address your issues with others.

I seem to have joined in too

(I had a lot of strange emails this week - phew! thank goodness for the few good ones as a percentage it was like 90% odd to 9% great - I jumped into this thread to let out some steam indirectly - seemed like a good place to) right sorted!

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

[useruseruser]

OK, ok.

Glasses, flares, lenses, blurs, shadows....
All this is done to remove the flatness of a 2D graphics design. A computer monitor is basicly 2D, you know?

So this are the essential things for 3D graphics design. The world isn't flat and the operating systems become more and more three-dimensional in the near future than ever (At least the next Windows).
So obviously there must be a reason for all this.

Maybe it's a very subtile setiment.

But it may be also a basic matter of taste. There are "flat" ppl outa there and thera are "plasic" ppl on the other side.

I personally don't like those flat designs (like on Pro52 for instance). It looks amateurish in my eyes.
And somehow booring.

Also to consider: The monitor gamma of the computers is very different. What dazzles on the one monitor, is even too dark on the other.

On Mac all the graphics stuff is significant lighter than on the PC and so on.

I dunno, what kinda monitors most users have in their studios and where they place those usually, but this can also be a reason for not getting the optimal workbench and seeing it something "distorted" ...

Please show me the one 2D VST GUI design, which really enjoys me...

But we can speak about improved functionality and wizzarding new GUI elements, even with 3D feeling. But this is finally a difficult thing, because ergonomics are nearly scientific. And such good graphics libraries (supplying this on the fly) are rare and need usually an enormous development expenditure.

And there is finally a performance limitation, very obviously shown with the Arturia modular synthesizers. (I was very impressed the first time, as I saw the flying patch cables, but also very fast discovered, that the GUI must be closed to get any resonable audio performance...)

Those things are discussable in my opinion, but a generalized "not wanting any 3D effect" is not really discussable, because a matter of taste.

Most users woun't finally forgo to the 3D look. Or want you really go back to the flat 2D console design of the 90's


PS: For realtime performance, there are usually hardware controllers, capable to send MIDI messages in realtime. I don't think, that there is any live artist seriously using the mouse on stage...

And a real musician don't need to read the labels of the knobs and sliders all the time. Right?.
So what?

.