That's not what I said. What I said is that UX will matter for certain basic operations that you want the user to carry out easily. Once you go beyond a certain level of complexity, I suspect that UX design becomes increasingly harder and yields less of a result.Tiles wrote: Tue Feb 10, 2026 5:19 pm Where I disagree is the implicit conclusion that this makes UX principles largely subjective or unfalsifiable. While preference varies, usability is not purely a matter of taste. There is a large body of empirical research in HCI and UX that shows consistent patterns across users. Nielsen’s usability heuristics, Norman’s concepts of mental models and affordances, and decades of usability testing all demonstrate that certain design choices systematically reduce error rates, learning time, and cognitive load across very different user groups. Even color theory plays a role, and we take available themes into account in our design decisions.
Things that may seem "consistent" often aren't. Compare this with overloading in programming languages. Also, reading the manual is seen as anathema in UX circles, but... really... you do need to RTFM for most things anyway.For example, consistency, both internal and external, is not an ideological preference. It is measurable. In controlled studies, consistent interaction patterns lead to faster task completion and fewer errors, even when users initially prefer a different style. Similarly, discoverability is not subjective. If a significant portion of users cannot find a function without documentation or prior instruction, that is a usability problem regardless of whether a core group of experienced users is comfortable with it.
Reaper does this to an extent. It works... ish. It's fine when it's few tracks. If routing becomes complex, as often is the case in mixing scenarios, then no amount of colour coding and hand holding will make the process that more enjoyable and less error-prone.As a concrete example, a common complaint in many DAWs, including Ardour, is the confusing audio routing system. Sends, busses, and outputs are often hard to distinguish, hidden in nested menus, and labeled inconsistently, which increases cognitive load and errors. A simple fix would be clearer labeling, color-coded grouping, and an inline drag-and-drop routing editor to make these functions immediately visible and easier to use.
In what way does Ardour work badly on this regard? (Honest question).Workflow differences also do not invalidate UX evaluation. Good UX does not mean forcing everyone into the same workflow. It means making the underlying model legible, predictable, and learnable. Two users can work very differently and still benefit from clear state representation, visible modes, reversible actions, and sensible defaults. Modal versus non-modal editing is a good example. Both can work well, but hidden or implicit modes are repeatedly shown to cause errors and frustration, especially for new or returning users.
And yet they are the respective butt of jokes of the opposing team.The vi and emacs comparison actually supports this point rather than undermining it. Both editors have extremely strong internal consistency and very clear underlying models. That is why they remain usable despite their differences. Tools that lack a coherent model or violate their own rules tend to be the ones users describe as inscrutable, regardless of personal taste.
Again, what I'm saying isn't that UX is bollocks (although I might have jokingly implied so). I'm saying that it matters up to a certain point. And that point is often very superficial when it comes to professional software.
