I'm not talking about "eye candy". You obviously did not read at all, just jumped in with an opinion.
What I'm talking about is elegant usabilty. Form following function. Good ideas about implementing complexity.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usabil ... usability/
For example: if it's possible to make a really deep and multi-branching rack then there should be a method of having a heirarchic overview of that, or a way of managing the complexity intuitively. This is not "eye candy" this is functionality. This is interaction design in the form of engineering for excellence.
My point about the BitWig's UI was to say how it was functionally elegant in implementing complex ideas with simple coherence. Bitwig implemented 3 things: A normalling system, an interface with learnability regarding drag and drop (it shows inserts and demonstrates Wired connection demonstrating wiring as a user interaction) and also allows "wireless" transmission by leveraging UI knowledge the users already picked up elsewhere (they re-use the UI model of modulation they use in their native rack devices)
Now that's a good set of practices. It leverages what users previously learned "Oh I can map an LFO to a filter by performing action X" and places it into a new feature, but the users can build on previous knowledge. It's not about drop shadows and glows - it's about how it visually informs users with buildable knowledge.
Lets look at some facets of Learnability and Usability
- It should be easy for the user to become familiar with and competent in using the user interface during the first contact.
- It should be easy for users to achieve their objective. If a user has the goal a good design will guide them through the easiest process to that .
- It should be easy to recall the user interface and how to use it on subsequent visits. So, a good design means the user should learn from the first time and implement a related action just as easily.
We must know that the modulator is not a MIDI device, it's a Max Audio device. We must know to either find it there, or we must know to search for LFO. We must know to drag it in and where. We must know that after we map the first element that we can map further elements by hitting the un-labelled menu item. We must be aware that mapping an LFO will disable other mapping to that control, such as MIDI control.
Now, how learnable is this? How easy is it to leverage that to a related action.
if we compare it to the Bitwig method can we drag wires to leveage a visual hierachic model, or can we leverage a previous metaphor? Nope.
Additionally : Live 10 comes with new modulation capabilities, very powerful. Are these implemented the same way? Do we visit Max->audio devices? Are they in any way related these two types of LFO / Modulation? Do we build on our previously learned interaction knowledge?
Nope.
Now, if you are outside the world of interaction design this seems like meaningless tyre kicking. But it is not. Live should have an elegant intuitive interaction. We should learn how to zoom the key view in Sampler, and that should be the same in Rack->key range. We should not be faced with two slightly differing paradigms.
This is the wrong way to do it.
I know this because I am shit at developing and maintaining a coherent interaction metaphor when new features creep intoa product. I know myself how I say "fuck it, this is wrong, but then need it by Tuesday". That's exactly what I am looking at here.
[mod edit off]