How does this "two-tier" orientation change the fact that some users find working with this UI close to impossible?dmbaer wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 9:07 pmOK, they're not obnoxious.wagtunes wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 2:56 pm Melda's UIs are obnoxious. The only reason I put up with is that the functionality of the software they are attached to is about the best out there. TurboDelay and TurboReverb are especially off the charts nuts. But I hate working with their UIs.
Again, they are obnoxious.
Nobody can tell me they're not.
But seriously, any discussion of the UI quality that ignores the two-level capability of MSF (in particular, but Melda plug-ins in general) is ignoring an essential aspect of what Melda is trying to accomplish.
Consider Falcon and/or HALion. These are deeply powerful but are very challenging to learn. Both, however, offer the ability to present a simple, focused synth creation courtesy of scripting and graphics/skinning-type capabilities. Both prove their worth in this area with numerous hosted "synths" that are really just implementations that sit on the fundamental capabilities, all of which were created by the company that developed the underlying synth. But what one individual possesses all those requisite capabilities? To build scripted/skinned UIs, you must be a master of sound design, scripting and graphics. To build such in instrument requires a team of individuals with diverse skills.
Of course, a comparatively easy alternative is to create a sound and define some macro controls to be the essential part of the interface. But what do you have? You've got a sound with a few macro controls that are just knobs. If knobs get the job done, then fine. Otherwise, the sound designer is limited in what he can accomplish.
With Melda, it's a different story. Melda is not shooting for the ultimate solution of using scripting and graphics to deliver the ultimate presentation. The goal is something between simple macro knobs and a fully-customized UI. And it offers this capability without requiring many weeks or even months of learning graphics or scripting skills.
As an example, one of the MSF devices I've (almost) completed is a reasonable approximation of a Farfisa combo organ. You could argue how faithfully it recreates the sound - but that's not the point. I was able to offer a UI that has stops identical to those on the original organ. Futhermore, I as able to offer some extremely easy-to-use switches, for example, with which the user can select mod-wheel, aftertouch or CC74 to govern vibrato depth. There are a number of extras there as well. This was done entirely with Melda multi-parameters and the Melda architecture goal of supporting a reasonable end-user presentation that avoids the need for scripting or special graphics.
So, for all those who insist on pontificating on the lack of merits of the Melda UI, if you do not acknowledge the two-tier orientation of that UI and include it in the discussion, you are, IMO, refusing to address an essential aspect of the subject.
You can make all the excuses you want but it doesn't change the underlying problem. Frustration working with the software.
The end user doesn't care about excuses or reasons.
Here you have to open a bunch of pop ups, if you find them at all. I wouldn't call that intuitive design.