PLASMONIC - A new synth from Brian Clevinger

[zvenx]

Here is the issue for me of 'doing things your own way'. Not specific to Plasmonic but in general.
If it is a tool you use everyday, you get accustomed to their way and you eventually learn to use it without thinking (muscle memory).
However if it is a tool you use probably every 5 or 6 months, you (well at least me), end up cursing.. how the hell do you do this again?
rsp

[FrogsInPants]

I'm not being facetious here, I truly don't get the course/fine argument.

In what COMMON numeric system are fine adjustments placed before course adjustments? What so hard about this? Makes perfect rational sense to me...

Your question is irrelevant, because the point is that it's not about the way the numbers are written at all. If you're literally clicking on the digits of a displayed number and dragging to modify them in place, sure, this digit-order-focused system could make sense. That's not how I look at an interface of sliders, though. It is a collection of primarily spatial relationships to numerical values, unrelated to how those numbers might be written. As such, I will relate much more naturally to controlling those numbers in ways that are spatially consistent rather than lexicographically consistent. That is what makes perfect rational sense to me, and evidently to others as well.

[PieBerger]

Remember when synths just went brrr, good times

[zvenx]

Remember when synths just went brrr, good times

Lol.

rsp

[sqigls]

[muki]

You're literally grabbing in empty space for fine adjustments on horizontal sliders and filled space on vertical ones.

ah...yse:
i *think* i might understand your point:

on the vertical you're grabbing the outer edge and expect to fully move it
i.e.: mousepointer going along with the edge

anyway,
imho the fine/course paradigm within one slider is surely an intersting choice
but imho nevertheless i'd prefer the proven and good old modifier-key-combo
all the other (at least most of...) vendors are using...

which (thinking aof it and trying it...) is still imho superior because
of lesser clicks and cursorpointingnavigation:

modifierkey action:
point over slider
click and hold slider
while holding press modifier key for fine tuning

plasmonic paradigm:
point over slider
click and hold slider
click off
find and point cursor over "fine" part of slider
click and hold drag slider for fine adjustment

->: imho more awkward

[RobertH2]

Here is the issue for me of 'doing things your own way'. Not specific to Plasmonic but in general.
If it is a tool you use everyday, you get accustomed to their way and you eventually learn to use it without thinking (muscle memory).
However if it is a tool you use probably every 5 or 6 months, you (well at least me), end up cursing.. how the hell do you do this again?
rsp

I understand what you are saying. These sliders, unlike any I have used in other programs / synths, are special. They have a useful label on them. When you hover over them they display their exact value. If you hover over one end or the other it tells you if you are adjusting the course or fine section. You can use the mouse wheel for adjusting that value. In physical model synths small adjustments can lead to huge sound changes, unlike most linear sliders. I think they are brilliant. There is no guess work on how they work, just hover.

[aMUSEd]

i'd prefer the proven and good old modifier-key-combo

Nope - prefer the way Plasmonic does it - finally a developer who understands musicians want to keep at least one hand on the keyboard when making adjustments - the modifier-key-combo always seemed more a programmer's approach than a musicians to me

[RobertH2]

i'd prefer the proven and good old modifier-key-combo

Nope - prefer the way Plasmonic does it - finally a developer who understands musicians want to keep at least one hand on the keyboard when making adjustments - the modifier-key-combo always seemed more a programmer's approach than a musicians to me

+1 and I am a programmer.
I might disagree if I had more than 2 hands...

[machinesworking]

You're literally grabbing in empty space for fine adjustments on horizontal sliders and filled space on vertical ones.

ah...yse:
i *think* i might understand your point:

on the vertical you're grabbing the outer edge and expect to fully move it
i.e.: mousepointer going along with the edge

anyway,
imho the fine/course paradigm within one slider is surely an intersting choice
but imho nevertheless i'd prefer the proven and good old modifier-key-combo
all the other (at least most of...) vendors are using...

which (thinking aof it and trying it...) is still imho superior because
of lesser clicks and cursorpointingnavigation:

modifierkey action:
point over slider
click and hold slider
while holding press modifier key for fine tuning

plasmonic paradigm:
point over slider
click and hold slider
click off
find and point cursor over "fine" part of slider
click and hold drag slider for fine adjustment

->: imho more awkward

I've got a Slate Raven so even though I'm on Mac OS and deal with Apple being stubborn about touch screens, I enjoy immensely how friendly Brians course/fine as separate areas UX works with touch screens, all one handed so the other can be on keys etc.

[machinesworking]

I'm not being facetious here, I truly don't get the course/fine argument.

Time: Years Months Weeks Hours Minutes Seconds
Money: Dollars Cents
Numbers: Integers Decimals
Distance: Miles Yards Feet Inches
Distance Metric: Kilometers Meters Centimeters Millimeters
Weight: Tons Pounds Ounces
Music: Note Quarter Eighth
Angles: Degree Arcminute Arcsecond

In what COMMON numeric system are fine adjustments placed before course adjustments? What so hard about this? Makes perfect rational sense to me...

As for the vertical controls:
Higher = larger/course
Lower = smaller/fine
A simple easy model...

I can agree with everything but what I bolded or your last take. In both cases lower and to the left you're doing the same thing lowering the value of the slider, yet horizontal sliders are set to course on the left or in the filled area of the slider, and vertical sliders are set to the top, the end generally of the filled area. In fact even in graphs where you see the value vertically most of the time they show the vertical values of the horizontal bar the lower number is on the top. Actually every single time in a graph the .1 value is above the 1. value. It should at least be a selection, and Brian agreed in an email I sent him the other day.

[Echoes in the Attic]

I'm not being facetious here, I truly don't get the course/fine argument.

Time: Years Months Weeks Hours Minutes Seconds
Money: Dollars Cents
Numbers: Integers Decimals
Distance: Miles Yards Feet Inches
Distance Metric: Kilometers Meters Centimeters Millimeters
Weight: Tons Pounds Ounces
Music: Note Quarter Eighth
Angles: Degree Arcminute Arcsecond

In what COMMON numeric system are fine adjustments placed before course adjustments? What so hard about this? Makes perfect rational sense to me...

As for the vertical controls:
Higher = larger/course
Lower = smaller/fine
A simple easy model...

I can agree with everything but what I bolded or your last take. In both cases lower and to the left you're doing the same thing lowering the value of the slider, yet horizontal sliders are set to course on the left or in the filled area of the slider, and vertical sliders are set to the top, the end generally of the filled area. In fact even in graphs where you see the value vertically most of the time they show the vertical values of the horizontal bar the lower number is on the top. Actually every single time in a graph the .1 value is above the 1. value. It should at least be a selection, and Brian agreed in an email I sent him the other day.

Yeah I don't get the assumption of that last part either, as if it's self evident. Why for vertical control is it that Higher = larger/course and Lower = smaller/fine? Couldn't you say the same for the horizontal controls where the higher end of the range (the right) should be for larger/coarse control and the lower end of the range (the left) be for smaller/fine control?

[RobertH2]

The thing is, it could be any arbitrary arraignment. That doesn't matter. What's important is the mental model that you have, how you think about it. If you use the wrong model, the one that does not work, no matter if it is "right" or "wrong", just leads to frustration. Do you want to be right or do you want it to work? Show some flexibility. Saying / thinking it "should" be this way, doesn't make it so. Come up with a way to make it work in your mind. Again hovering over the control shows you what each side of the control truly does, if you don't want want to use a mental model.

[Artie Fichelle]

same problem with the "natural mouse behavior"in Mac OS X. Not so natural for me. I always had to change it.

[sqigls]

me too