Bitwig UI makes Live look old-fashioned

Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
Angstrom
Posts: 14661
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Bitwig UI makes Live look old-fashioned

Post by Angstrom » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:04 pm

kitekrazy wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:15 pm
I guess I'm not from generation that needs my eye candy to work with a DAW. I even use Reaper's plain GUI. I have the CM version of Bitwig and I just don't dig it. I'm not gonna switch anytime soon.
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.
So, lets compare a similar situation in Live. Mapping a modulator.

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.

kitekrazy
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:16 pm

Re: Bitwig UI makes Live look old-fashioned

Post by kitekrazy » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:45 am

Angstrom wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:04 pm
kitekrazy wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:15 pm
I guess I'm not from generation that needs my eye candy to work with a DAW. I even use Reaper's plain GUI. I have the CM version of Bitwig and I just don't dig it. I'm not gonna switch anytime soon.
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.
So, lets compare a similar situation in Live. Mapping a modulator.

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.
I sure did. My attention span is quite short on forums and I didn't even read this post.


[mod edit]Thanks Kitecrazy, that's really interesting food for thoughts :x [mod edit off]

fishmonkey
Posts: 4088
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:50 am

Re: Bitwig UI makes Live look old-fashioned

Post by fishmonkey » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:16 am

Angstrom wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:04 pm
I know this because I am shit at developing and maintaining a coherent interaction metaphor when new features creep into a 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.
ok, so you are at war with evolution!
badbrainz wrote: I'm a drummer, so I'm already at an intellectual disadvantage here

Angstrom
Posts: 14661
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Bitwig UI makes Live look old-fashioned

Post by Angstrom » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:36 pm

kitekrazy wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:45 am
I sure did. My attention span is quite short on forums and I didn't even read this post.
Waiting for it to be released in hardback form eh?
That is the optimal way to read my screeds.

arafel
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:19 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Bitwig UI makes Live look old-fashioned

Post by arafel » Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:31 am

Just a TY to Op: Angstrom.

Great reading.
Helps me feel sane that I'm not alone in struggling with the Live clunkyness : browser, search, file management & dead stops (freeze track with sidechain.. ya ya. I'm on 9 cause 10 crashes my system still).
2.8ghz Quad PowerMac, Fa-66 using optical link, Live 9.72, Remote25, Maschine, Samson 65a.

Post Reply