New "Weirder-Looking" Effect Interfaces vs. Classic

[DCrown]

I need feeling of hunger to be creative, so your plugin obviously is quite counterproductive.

[billinder33]

I find cutsey, gamey GUI'S not only to be off-putting personally, but to my clients as well. A serious musician paying real money for real audio engineering is probably not going to want to to work with a producer/engineer who's tools look more like toys. Of course, that's just my opinion....YMMV.

Basically this. These kinds of plugins may be fun for noobs and kids, but people who are serious about investing in the craft are going to grow out of it quickly.

In terms of the plugin developer's business model, a lot of money is left on the table by taking this approach.

[whassup]

I would say there are 3, not two.

First, the classic skeumorphic design that looks like hardware, this is good for plugins that are emulations, it enhances engagement, it is familiar for many people. I is also a marketing device for many companies trying to sell nostalgia or "the dream" of working with expensive hardware. But there are plugins where even if they are emulations they still suck, as shadow hills master compressor, that is hard to use. a LA2 or a moog model d are easy, recognizable and you know where the stuff is and does.

Second, the "design for the computer" school, where the GUI delivers a more appropriate interface designed to use with a mouse, provides more information (fabfilter Proc, proL, saturn are main examples), are not flashy and are good for working for hours (ableton live, valahalla). A common improvement is that the signal flow is more clear, although not always, and modulation system can also be more flexible and easy to use. EQ have also benefited form this approach a lot and I think they are the biggest gap with the HW counterparts.

Third, the crazy or experimental ones, some that make no sense (ohmboys back in the day, delay lama), some that are experimental because the plugin is trying to do new things as Synthplant, or various by Sugarbytes as Tornado, Obscurium and aparillo.

Developers can do each of those types right or wrong, because what matters is usability, but for the third one you normally expect it only for experimental plugins where the risks of a new GUI style goes hand in hand with whatever the plugin is trying to do.

Basically this.

I generally tend towards second.
If a plugin has new and crazy graphical things they must make sense quickly and give me high ROI for the learning curve.
These things should be at least intuitive.
And please spare me a new language to learn if possible. Pitch is pitch, delay time is...
A "tech" view and a "fun" view switchable e.g. as in Aparillo is good for various reasons.

[heyheycnv]

Sorry but I can't waste my time even trying to remember what the carrot, bread or onion is supposed to be.

[zerocrossing]

I don’t mind an occasional mystery interface, but I rarely use one when I’m trying to make something beyond experimental stuff. My bigger issue with your company is that there is no demo version. No demo, no purchase.

[sjm]

I'm a big believer in asking what goal it is a user is going to want to achieve with your software. This is a more abstract question, detached from the actual technical implementation. Then, when you know what goal(s) you are trying to achieve with the software, the question can turn to asking "what is the best way to reach this goal?"

Having watched the video for Sound Soup, I am unable to answer the first question, i.e. determine what it is the plugin is helping me achieve. For something that most people probably want to be utilitarian first and foremost, that's a problem. Maybe this is due to a lack of a voiceover explaining what the various ingredients do; but if it's not obviously helping me achieve my overall goal (as a user/musician) of creating an absolute banger, I have to ask what the point is, and why I'd buy the plugin in the first place.

That means I can only speculate as to whether the plugin is reaching this goal optimally. But I suspect it isn't, bacause dragging and dropping elements is fundamentally an inefficent workflow. If I compare the interface with games (which it seems to be inspired by), it reminds me of the sort of inventory managment I hate because it's such a pain to use.

If I want to sell items to a merchant or select ingredients for crafting, I want to just click on the items to sell them/add them to the recipe. Dragging multiple items from one side of the screen to another is just so much less efficient than clicking on the items one by one within a small area of the screen (i.e. the inventory). One method takes 60 seconds, one takes 10. I know which one I prefer. I mean, I don't like having to drag items to a slot to equip them, and that's only one item, not multiple. The only time it makes sense to drag an item to be equipped is when there are multiple slots for the same item type (typically rings/accessories and possibly dual wielding), where you want to choose which item to replace (I want to keep the +20 Strength ring equipped, not the +3 Mana ring if I'm a warrior, but that's still a choice the player needs to make). If there is only one slot for armour or a helmet, then there is zero need to force drag&drop on the user from a design point of view. Ergo, it's poor design, as it makes the user's life harder. The goal here is "equip the items I want to use for this character" not "drag pretty icons around the screen". The quicker and easier it is to reach that goal, the better.

But if I'm moving jigsaw pieces in a game, say, then dragging and dropping is the right choice, because slotting the right pieces together depends on proximity, and that's the basic premise of a jigsaw. Just clicking on a piece and having it magically moved to the right spot would take all the enjoyment out of the game.

So a well-designed piece of software, or a component/module in a larger piece of software (e.g. inventory management in a CRPG) helps achieve a clear goal, and does so in a way that is easy and efficient to use in the given context. I think you need to ask yourself the question, "does my plugin do that?". I think the answer is probably "no" on both counts. From where I'm standing, the goal is unclear, which makes the question of the design being up to scratch essentially moot. Make sure you have clear answer to the first question, and that the goal is clearly comunicated. Only then should you proceed. If you can't easily answer question 1, you've jumped the gun, and shouldn't be implementing anything yet.

[eLawnMust]

'Classic' wasn't a rectangle with knobs it was GUI-Less with sliders however some hosts did present them as knobs, which sucked in comparison...

SkaleTracker had probably the nicest looking/function of them all-

[Uncle E]

Sound Soup looks like Stardew Valley

[blairjack37]

I don’t mind an occasional mystery interface, but I rarely use one when I’m trying to make something beyond experimental stuff. My bigger issue with your company is that there is no demo version. No demo, no purchase.

There is a demo! But good feedback, I will make that more clear for sure!
thanks for checking it out

[blairjack37]

Sound Soup looks like Stardew Valley

A big inspo for me! appreciate ya checking it out!

[blairjack37]

I'm a big believer in asking what goal it is a user is going to want to achieve with your software. This is a more abstract question, detached from the actual technical implementation. Then, when you know what goal(s) you are trying to achieve with the software, the question can turn to asking "what is the best way to reach this goal?"

I really love this feedback! I'm a producer and so I did make it to solve an issue I have when working on sound design (the ability to quickly throw together different sound design ideas, blend and mix parallel FX buses all in the same plugin window) So I made something that accomplished that goal, and then wanted to see if I could make something that felt more unique and weird.

I totally get its vibe isn't for everyone, but I will definitely work on how to communicate the goal and object of the plugin with more clarity and on first glance for those who it may resonate more with! Appreciate your time and thoughts!

[osiris]

If it sounds good I'll use it. I HATED Sausage Fattener but would use it all the time. As long as the controls aren't labeled with weird names, or if they are, tell you what they do when you hover over them, I'm okay.

[Morty-C-137]

I don’t have any affinity with plugins looking like oldschool hardware. Especially when it makes zero sense in a computer environment where you use the mouse to move things around and not your hands.

Some, like UAD insist (too often) to do a 1:1 copy. Having push buttons that need a lot of mousclicks as dry/wet controls for a Lexicon reverb plugin makes zero sense and really gets in the way. Rack ears and screws.. why??

I don’t mind it looking like oldschool hardware but at least make it make sense for us mouse operators and loose the stuff from the hardware that doesn’t.

The only preference I have is: make the UX good. Whatever combination of workflow and GUI elements you employ to get that is fine by me. If the UX gets in the way or is straining in any way > in the garbage it goes. I want my tools to be (preferably) a joy to use, but if-not a joy, at bare minimum not get in the way. Time is precious and choice is plenty.

[Uncle E]

A big inspo for me!

Success!

These cute interfaces seem to be a Gen Z thing. Us old timers need to stop shaking our fists at the clouds about it.

[Zeisner]

These cute interfaces seem to be a Gen Z thing.

More of a millenials thing. Remembering a childhood they never had, similar to that pseudo eighties neon style that can be seen everywhere now, including plugin GUIs.