...or other audio-related software.
I started a discussion about this in the thread about Wavelengths new Europa synth, but I wanted to get the discussion to a more general level, not just that one synth, so I made a seperate topic here.
Maybe John can move some of the posts from that topic to here. Otherwise just follow this link. http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... orum=10&38
I'd be very interested to hear the views of other concerning GUI design. What constitutes a good interface for you? Do you care about the color? The look? The size of the knobs? The "character"? Or does it really only have to be functional? Would you be prepared to pay more for a device with a well thought-out and designed interface? What about software interfaces looking like hardware, good or bad?
In short my own opinion: I like it when a device's GUI clearly has a lot of effort in it. Where the designer made an effort to make it look attractive, as well as find solutions to make it as functional as possible. I like it when the designer has taken the time to develop his own graphics for a synth, so that it doesn't look like just another collection of knobs and digits on a coloured surface, but it has a visual character, as well as a sonic. How the synth looks should reflect how it sounds and works. I like interfaces that invite me to interact with them, and that I don't mind looking at for long times. I think a good interface is almost as important as a good sound.
Interface design for softsynths...
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
a qvery subjective matter indeed. it's impossible to please everyone. personally, i don't like the 'look-a-like' synths (007) or gimmicky stuff (inferno flames, first version of DS-synth (analogift)). it's gotta be clear, simple, sobre. i think the python gets pretty close. also d-tune, subdub and freakmod are in this category. that's why i probably use them quite frequently. or is it because these 3 FREE synths also SOUND great?
that's the most important of course. i won't let the decision of buying/using depend on the surface at all. maybe at a 85/15 ratio. most of the time the surface is closed anyway.
as long as the device is not red colored... i hate red, except on my nordrack
i want blue and green.
just a subjective 2 cents.
about the europa: i would feel more relaxed with a surface that's wider and less high (although the size of this particular synth probably won't allow it). and with the 'segments' in an overall darker color than the background. but this won't keep me from buying, as i've had lots of fun making sounds with this one last night. now i just want the 'pong' to go away. it'll be worth every 99 USD.
i wouldn't buy if it looked like the solaris, but cost twice as much as now... end of story. 200€/$ is a tad too much. i was tempted to go for the python though, but i rather spend my money elsewhere now.
that's the most important of course. i won't let the decision of buying/using depend on the surface at all. maybe at a 85/15 ratio. most of the time the surface is closed anyway.
as long as the device is not red colored... i hate red, except on my nordrack
i want blue and green.
just a subjective 2 cents.
about the europa: i would feel more relaxed with a surface that's wider and less high (although the size of this particular synth probably won't allow it). and with the 'segments' in an overall darker color than the background. but this won't keep me from buying, as i've had lots of fun making sounds with this one last night. now i just want the 'pong' to go away. it'll be worth every 99 USD.
i wouldn't buy if it looked like the solaris, but cost twice as much as now... end of story. 200€/$ is a tad too much. i was tempted to go for the python though, but i rather spend my money elsewhere now.
andy
the lunatics are in the hall
the lunatics are in the hall
GUI is extremely important. And of course it is subjective. There are very few absolutes in design.
But poor design can't be excused because "it doesn't matter that much". It does. For many reasons.
A bad GUI may be bad because:
1) It's inappropriate for the type of machine. For example, pink and yellow flowers on a hardcore industrial device would not feel right.
2) It is difficult to read.
3) It is not logically arranged and doesn't factor in how people actually use the device. For example, when you are programming a sound common elements that interact are far apart.
4) It breaks established conventions on GUI design but doesn't replace them with something better. For example, filter and resonance controls traditionally go together. People expect it.
5) It breaks good design rules. For example, uses red type on green, or uses type that is too small. Or it may be too bright and tire the eyes.
6) It fights against human visual processing. This is a bit trickier, but I mean here that a GUI may be "messy". Human vision always looks for patterns and order.
7) It is physically hard to control. By this I mean that elements are too small to effciently work with, or are too fiddly to use easily with the mouse.
It looks cheap. This is really subjective, but you know what I mean. It is something that looks as if it's been put together in a hurry; or by someone who didn't care; or by someone with no talent for the work; something amateurish. We can all spot this I think.
9) If the device costs money then you to want (and expect) something that looks pleasing. It is the same with almost every product. If you buy a car you don't want to say to your friends "Yes, I know it looks cheap and ugly, but it's very comfortable and drives well." It is the same with a GUI on a synth. Nor should a good design cost "extra". That's absurd. Good design is a vital part of the overall device, it's not an extra.
10) A pleasing look can inspire you - it means you will like to have it on your screen and feel good looking at it. It will invite you to turn knobs and pull sliders. An ugly GUI may discourage use. You may think: "This is ugly, I want it off my screen as soon as possible." Not everyone will think that, but some will, and I think many others will be subconsciously influenced by this factor.
I think the Europa is ugly and breaks most of the above points.
The PlasticZ is a very unsual design but I think it works:
The Pentagon is a very popular and well-regarded VSTi. Opinions seems pretty divided on it's GUI. Some love, some hate. Personally I find it professional but bland, and that blandness makes it hard for me to immediately see what's going on. On the plus side it does have all the controls on one screen and is not garish.
The Cronox goes for the realistic model of design. I don't like the mustard-orange colour, but again it looks slick and is well arranged.
Finally, here's the Z3ta. It's a monster VSTi with huge sound-making potential. It's a multi-page job. Many people like the GUI. It copes reasonably well with trying to display many options in a mangeable space. And again it has a slick professional feel.
I think the Europa looks quite bland and a little amateurish in this context (although it's sound is brilliant!!):
( NB: Edits to correct some picture links )
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spirit on 2003-02-22 09:23 ]</font>
But poor design can't be excused because "it doesn't matter that much". It does. For many reasons.
A bad GUI may be bad because:
1) It's inappropriate for the type of machine. For example, pink and yellow flowers on a hardcore industrial device would not feel right.
2) It is difficult to read.
3) It is not logically arranged and doesn't factor in how people actually use the device. For example, when you are programming a sound common elements that interact are far apart.
4) It breaks established conventions on GUI design but doesn't replace them with something better. For example, filter and resonance controls traditionally go together. People expect it.
5) It breaks good design rules. For example, uses red type on green, or uses type that is too small. Or it may be too bright and tire the eyes.
6) It fights against human visual processing. This is a bit trickier, but I mean here that a GUI may be "messy". Human vision always looks for patterns and order.
7) It is physically hard to control. By this I mean that elements are too small to effciently work with, or are too fiddly to use easily with the mouse.
It looks cheap. This is really subjective, but you know what I mean. It is something that looks as if it's been put together in a hurry; or by someone who didn't care; or by someone with no talent for the work; something amateurish. We can all spot this I think.9) If the device costs money then you to want (and expect) something that looks pleasing. It is the same with almost every product. If you buy a car you don't want to say to your friends "Yes, I know it looks cheap and ugly, but it's very comfortable and drives well." It is the same with a GUI on a synth. Nor should a good design cost "extra". That's absurd. Good design is a vital part of the overall device, it's not an extra.
10) A pleasing look can inspire you - it means you will like to have it on your screen and feel good looking at it. It will invite you to turn knobs and pull sliders. An ugly GUI may discourage use. You may think: "This is ugly, I want it off my screen as soon as possible." Not everyone will think that, but some will, and I think many others will be subconsciously influenced by this factor.
I think the Europa is ugly and breaks most of the above points.
The PlasticZ is a very unsual design but I think it works:
The Pentagon is a very popular and well-regarded VSTi. Opinions seems pretty divided on it's GUI. Some love, some hate. Personally I find it professional but bland, and that blandness makes it hard for me to immediately see what's going on. On the plus side it does have all the controls on one screen and is not garish.
The Cronox goes for the realistic model of design. I don't like the mustard-orange colour, but again it looks slick and is well arranged.
Finally, here's the Z3ta. It's a monster VSTi with huge sound-making potential. It's a multi-page job. Many people like the GUI. It copes reasonably well with trying to display many options in a mangeable space. And again it has a slick professional feel.
I think the Europa looks quite bland and a little amateurish in this context (although it's sound is brilliant!!):
( NB: Edits to correct some picture links )
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spirit on 2003-02-22 09:23 ]</font>
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Spirit, your the man. You managed to put into words (and pictures) pretty much exactly how I feel, but I needed some 5 different post for it in that other thread 
Indeed, as subjective as design is, there are still basic rules that go a long way to provide at least a good basis for a design.
And posting pictures is a good idea. Post some of your favourite or maybe your least favourite GUI's for all to see and discuss!
Here's one I mentioned in the other thread:
I like it because it looks pretty slick, and it's very easy to see what does what at the same time. It has a realistic look, but at the same time incorporated nice effects like visual waveforms for the oscillators that update in realtime when you switch or mix waveforms. All the sections are clearly seperated and they found a nice solution for showing more info on the same size window: to the left of the envelope en to the right of the mod matrix there are switches that switch between different envelopes and things such as lfo's. You although there is only one envelope on screen at any time, you can still quickly edit all the others in the same place. Still, I would have given the space of one of the effects to another envelope, and make one switcheble window for the two effects, but you would have two envelopes on screen at all times. Oh and the red on black text get's a bit hard to read sometimes.
Well I had to include this, because it's still my favourite Pulsar synth. Of course, here the look is pretty much copied directly from the original hardware synth, but it still works well. The sharp black and white contrast makes for easy reading and sections are clearly marked off. And it has wooden sides
(yes, it just looks better than without them) The only drawback is that it has this weird "remote" thing that always get's lost behind a mixer somewhere but you need it to open the sequencer and arpeggiator (which also have their own windows)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-22 10:50 ]</font>
Indeed, as subjective as design is, there are still basic rules that go a long way to provide at least a good basis for a design.
And posting pictures is a good idea. Post some of your favourite or maybe your least favourite GUI's for all to see and discuss!
Here's one I mentioned in the other thread:
I like it because it looks pretty slick, and it's very easy to see what does what at the same time. It has a realistic look, but at the same time incorporated nice effects like visual waveforms for the oscillators that update in realtime when you switch or mix waveforms. All the sections are clearly seperated and they found a nice solution for showing more info on the same size window: to the left of the envelope en to the right of the mod matrix there are switches that switch between different envelopes and things such as lfo's. You although there is only one envelope on screen at any time, you can still quickly edit all the others in the same place. Still, I would have given the space of one of the effects to another envelope, and make one switcheble window for the two effects, but you would have two envelopes on screen at all times. Oh and the red on black text get's a bit hard to read sometimes.
Well I had to include this, because it's still my favourite Pulsar synth. Of course, here the look is pretty much copied directly from the original hardware synth, but it still works well. The sharp black and white contrast makes for easy reading and sections are clearly marked off. And it has wooden sides
(yes, it just looks better than without them) The only drawback is that it has this weird "remote" thing that always get's lost behind a mixer somewhere but you need it to open the sequencer and arpeggiator (which also have their own windows)<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-22 10:50 ]</font>
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
I think the STS range is a good example of how not to make an interface. It tries to be hardware too much. It looks allright, but the fact that I had to read the manual several times to understand the workings of this sampler speaks for itself. And after that you have to keep going back to the manual because the interface is just so unintuitive. Too many different windows that are not accessible via a logical structure. And far too much screenspace for too little information. Maybe someone who has worked with Akai samplers all his life might not have a problem, but you only have to look at Kontakt to see how software sampling can be done.
The D-comp also looks very cool and I like the huge knobs. It really has you just reaching for the knob and using it. It makes it look as easy as it is, a good example of the GUI reflecting the nature of the device itself. I also like the symmetric look of it. Of course, it's too big! The lower half really should have been left off or a simple front/back switch should have been added instead.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 06:51 ]</font>
Yes! The awful, awful STS. I also dislike the way you have to "burrow" through menus to get to some of the basic functions. Absolutely hopeless design.
I think CW took the multi-screen Akai hardware as its model and tried to translate it. But they emulated the weakness of the design and then made it even worse.
I think CW took the multi-screen Akai hardware as its model and tried to translate it. But they emulated the weakness of the design and then made it even worse.
The thing is that all of the Akai's functions are accessible from the front panel, and it's really easy to find your way around...
If you want to record, you press the record button, and the recording program pops up, and all you have to do is press the rec button... (creating key-groups is done after the sample is made, and is DEAD EASY using the ak.sys software (via usb)...
If you want to record, you press the record button, and the recording program pops up, and all you have to do is press the rec button... (creating key-groups is done after the sample is made, and is DEAD EASY using the ak.sys software (via usb)...
let's just remember that the STS was one of the first approaches to bring an Akai like sampler to the PC platform, and regard the interface as a kind of learning experience.
I find the color shading of the PlasicZ too much, makes me wanna wipe over screen to get the smear awai
My personal preference is the fader look of the Junos.
Most easy to represent current values and the only thing usable with a touch screen.
Unfortunately the 'touch-sensitive' area is too small and one frequently moves the whole device around. CW once told me the surface can't be locked. Dunno if that has changed meanwhile, but it would be a feature on top of my personal wishlist.
Despite it's simple look I found tweaking sounds on the Europa very straight forward, kind of a wolfe in a sheep's skin
On the Wavelenght Avalon there's a small oszilloscope like window.
I first took it as a gimmick, but after some time the visual feedback turned out extremely useful for finetuning. It doesn't matter if it's a physically correct representation, but the simple change of patterns made me anticipate the direction the sound was evolving.
On the Saturn there's a fader changing color depending on the filter mixture.
I'd like to see more in that direction, could make things much easier to control, specially on complex settings.
my 2 cents, Tom
I find the color shading of the PlasicZ too much, makes me wanna wipe over screen to get the smear awai
My personal preference is the fader look of the Junos.
Most easy to represent current values and the only thing usable with a touch screen.
Unfortunately the 'touch-sensitive' area is too small and one frequently moves the whole device around. CW once told me the surface can't be locked. Dunno if that has changed meanwhile, but it would be a feature on top of my personal wishlist.
Despite it's simple look I found tweaking sounds on the Europa very straight forward, kind of a wolfe in a sheep's skin
On the Wavelenght Avalon there's a small oszilloscope like window.
I first took it as a gimmick, but after some time the visual feedback turned out extremely useful for finetuning. It doesn't matter if it's a physically correct representation, but the simple change of patterns made me anticipate the direction the sound was evolving.
On the Saturn there's a fader changing color depending on the filter mixture.
I'd like to see more in that direction, could make things much easier to control, specially on complex settings.
my 2 cents, Tom
Nice thread!
I think the point is...
1. a device should have a clean and logical design, no flames or bubbles or other gimmicks
2. there should be a logical structure, the most necessary on the front page, split in visible different modules
3. a relaxed/relaxing user interface is important, no need for having a numerical feedback for everything, you can change values with knobs and ... switches, joysticks, barrs ... at least you get a visible feedback
4. it ist not absolutely necessary to fill the desktop with one device when it is not a mixer
5. let us work all together, the biggest developing community ...
Jan
I think the point is...
1. a device should have a clean and logical design, no flames or bubbles or other gimmicks
2. there should be a logical structure, the most necessary on the front page, split in visible different modules
3. a relaxed/relaxing user interface is important, no need for having a numerical feedback for everything, you can change values with knobs and ... switches, joysticks, barrs ... at least you get a visible feedback
4. it ist not absolutely necessary to fill the desktop with one device when it is not a mixer
5. let us work all together, the biggest developing community ...
Jan
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
by the way: it sounds totally amazing too! Really fat basses, very flexible oscillators (4 osc, switcheable analog, digital or noise), lovely smooth filters, mod matrix...
And 650 great presets by Rob Papen himself.
Download the demo NOW at http://www.robpapen.com
It beats most Pulsar synths IMO (except maybe the Zarg stuff...) and it's definitely next on my "to buy" list.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 06:03 ]</font>
And 650 great presets by Rob Papen himself.
Download the demo NOW at http://www.robpapen.com
It beats most Pulsar synths IMO (except maybe the Zarg stuff...) and it's definitely next on my "to buy" list.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 06:03 ]</font>
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
btw. LinPlug are hiring interface designers now! http://www.linplug.com/Company/Jobs/jobs.htm
http://www.linplug.com/Company/Jobs/jobs.htmA little idea I had while browsing some adverts in a music magazine. For those using XTC, Infinity allows you to host VST plugins and build your own user interface. Never tried it myself (I use SFP classic), but someone might find it useful. Here's the link:
http://www.squest.com/Windows/Infinity-Features.html
P.S. Also, the results are freely distributable apparently.
http://www.squest.com/Windows/Infinity-Features.html
P.S. Also, the results are freely distributable apparently.
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
for reference purposes, here's a pic of Kontakt. I haven't used it myself but everybody is always ravinf about it so...
I do use Battery though, which is another example of a cool interface that uses the fact that it's software to it's advantage by representing your drumsamples in "cells".
It's clear that for both instruments, the "hardware look" was ditched almost completely in favour of a specific software design. It looks more functional than flashy, and the colours are easy on the eyes while still giving it a distinctive look.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 07:02 ]</font>
I do use Battery though, which is another example of a cool interface that uses the fact that it's software to it's advantage by representing your drumsamples in "cells".
It's clear that for both instruments, the "hardware look" was ditched almost completely in favour of a specific software design. It looks more functional than flashy, and the colours are easy on the eyes while still giving it a distinctive look.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 07:02 ]</font>
I don't find the interfaces of both Kontakt and Battery specifically intuitive or a superior way of doing things.
They also have their learning curve. Some elements look fancy but there's no (function directed) guide for the eye in all those colorful patches.
Could it be that their reputation is mostly based on the the great preset libs they are delivered with ?
Many users may get quick results right out of the box and that way associate their positive feelings with the look and feel.
That's not bad in itself and a valid point for marketing the applications, but it's results are not '...due to the better interface'.
just an idea, Tom
They also have their learning curve. Some elements look fancy but there's no (function directed) guide for the eye in all those colorful patches.
Could it be that their reputation is mostly based on the the great preset libs they are delivered with ?
Many users may get quick results right out of the box and that way associate their positive feelings with the look and feel.
That's not bad in itself and a valid point for marketing the applications, but it's results are not '...due to the better interface'.
just an idea, Tom
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Well, as I said, I can't speak for Kontakt myself, but for Battery, I could use it almost straight of of the box and found it very intuitive. The only thing that could be better is the mod matrix, which isn't really wel represented in the interface.
I really don't see much "fancy" elements in Battery. If anything, I think the interface is quite minimal, but it works very well (for me). Your whole drumkit arranged visually in one screen, and you can see which sounds are playing as well, with the cells lighting up (looks cool too, when you use loads of drumsounds) It's clear that, for drumsounds, it works miles better and faster than a conventional sampler.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 13:38 ]</font>
I really don't see much "fancy" elements in Battery. If anything, I think the interface is quite minimal, but it works very well (for me). Your whole drumkit arranged visually in one screen, and you can see which sounds are playing as well, with the cells lighting up (looks cool too, when you use loads of drumsounds
) It's clear that, for drumsounds, it works miles better and faster than a conventional sampler.<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-02-23 13:38 ]</font>
-
wavelength
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: wavelength devices
- Contact:
hey!
me again... found the moved thread. good to see some interest in this subject-matter.
i guess i just want to add a few thoughts here from a SCOPE designer's perspective:
- even a device GUI as relatively "un-flashy" as my europa's surface requires a lot of effort to produce (more than many that you might regard as better-looking)... remember all of the various settings need to be connected to their appropriate "inside" connection-points and have the appropriate parameter values assigned to them.. this is by far the most time-consuming part of the GUI design. by this point in the design'z evolution i usually want to try and make the various parameters make some sort of logical sense and then (lastly) find a way to make everything extra-"pretty". the "pretty"-factor is (just look even at hardware) fairly low on the list of priorities for an electronic music device. something that ends up looking pretty (which i actually think the europa does, in a simple way) is usually the result of things coming together artistically, as the functionality evolves (but this is still always subjective).
- in any device GUI-design situation i find that i can either go one of two ways and this is usually dictated by how i think the user would best interact with the device's controls: either more artistic or more functional, sometimes it is possible to find a happy marriage of both, but this is tricky (and still never satisfies everybody)
- an "edgey" artistic design is always the more risky route to take, because you will always end up alienating more people in this way. functional and tried-and-true layouts are, by far, the safest route to take from a designer's perspective.
- where a musical instrument is concerned, function and play-ability are always the most important factors... one of my favourite saxes (i'm a jazz-guy) that i ever played looked like a piece of crap! but the tone!
- in the europa's case, for instance, i had thought to do something with a more vintage "Roland" vibe, but found that to do this meant that i would have to make the surface quite complicated (with various pages) to do so (so that everything would still fit). musically, it is always better to have as much in front of you, as possible, parameter-wise. i decided the Roland-way wasn't the way to go + the synth had evolved into more than a Roland emulator anyway... so why regurgitate some old surface ideas just for nostagia's sake? so i gave it it's own look, which works really well for me (at least)... everything labelled nice and clear.
- do things like "pretend" wood-panels really add that much to the perceived-value of a device? especially when they eat up valuable screen-real-estate? i, personally, think this trend is rather cheesy... unless the device is supposed to look EXACTLY (for whatever reason) like its hardware predecessor.
- i also believe that software GUI-design should move away from hardware copy-catting and find better (more innovative) ways of presenting any given device's information, in ways more appropriate to the medium... this is still a relatively young field, so things are still evolving.
- gimmicks, such as a rusty-looking surface for a device that can do some distorted "industrial" sounds, in also quite cheesy and can actually be very limiting, in terms of how the user perceives the device's functionality. what if this same device can also put out a beautifully angelic vox-humana? would the interface still be appropriate? the better route is to go with something relatively neutral and all-encompassing.
- a GUI should be relaxing and unassuming to look at (no overly bright colours, etc) because a user might have be looking at it for long-periods of time and in very different musical circumstances... it has to fit all moods (or no moods). making a GUI fit into some marketing musical genre-niche is a very "consumer" and "un-pro" way to go... it cheapens the device, considerably. professionals who have to work with their tools everyday to make a living want something that makes sense and is non-irritating to look at repeatedly.
- the decision to make a device's GUI functionally appropriate, over something overly "artsy" does not imply any lack of effort on the designers part.
Regards,
Stephen
wavelength devices
http://www.track0.com/wavelength/
me again... found the moved thread. good to see some interest in this subject-matter.
i guess i just want to add a few thoughts here from a SCOPE designer's perspective:
- even a device GUI as relatively "un-flashy" as my europa's surface requires a lot of effort to produce (more than many that you might regard as better-looking)... remember all of the various settings need to be connected to their appropriate "inside" connection-points and have the appropriate parameter values assigned to them.. this is by far the most time-consuming part of the GUI design. by this point in the design'z evolution i usually want to try and make the various parameters make some sort of logical sense and then (lastly) find a way to make everything extra-"pretty". the "pretty"-factor is (just look even at hardware) fairly low on the list of priorities for an electronic music device. something that ends up looking pretty (which i actually think the europa does, in a simple way) is usually the result of things coming together artistically, as the functionality evolves (but this is still always subjective).
- in any device GUI-design situation i find that i can either go one of two ways and this is usually dictated by how i think the user would best interact with the device's controls: either more artistic or more functional, sometimes it is possible to find a happy marriage of both, but this is tricky (and still never satisfies everybody)
- an "edgey" artistic design is always the more risky route to take, because you will always end up alienating more people in this way. functional and tried-and-true layouts are, by far, the safest route to take from a designer's perspective.
- where a musical instrument is concerned, function and play-ability are always the most important factors... one of my favourite saxes (i'm a jazz-guy) that i ever played looked like a piece of crap! but the tone!
- in the europa's case, for instance, i had thought to do something with a more vintage "Roland" vibe, but found that to do this meant that i would have to make the surface quite complicated (with various pages) to do so (so that everything would still fit). musically, it is always better to have as much in front of you, as possible, parameter-wise. i decided the Roland-way wasn't the way to go + the synth had evolved into more than a Roland emulator anyway... so why regurgitate some old surface ideas just for nostagia's sake? so i gave it it's own look, which works really well for me (at least)... everything labelled nice and clear.
- do things like "pretend" wood-panels really add that much to the perceived-value of a device? especially when they eat up valuable screen-real-estate? i, personally, think this trend is rather cheesy... unless the device is supposed to look EXACTLY (for whatever reason) like its hardware predecessor.
- i also believe that software GUI-design should move away from hardware copy-catting and find better (more innovative) ways of presenting any given device's information, in ways more appropriate to the medium... this is still a relatively young field, so things are still evolving.
- gimmicks, such as a rusty-looking surface for a device that can do some distorted "industrial" sounds, in also quite cheesy and can actually be very limiting, in terms of how the user perceives the device's functionality. what if this same device can also put out a beautifully angelic vox-humana? would the interface still be appropriate? the better route is to go with something relatively neutral and all-encompassing.
- a GUI should be relaxing and unassuming to look at (no overly bright colours, etc) because a user might have be looking at it for long-periods of time and in very different musical circumstances... it has to fit all moods (or no moods). making a GUI fit into some marketing musical genre-niche is a very "consumer" and "un-pro" way to go... it cheapens the device, considerably. professionals who have to work with their tools everyday to make a living want something that makes sense and is non-irritating to look at repeatedly.
- the decision to make a device's GUI functionally appropriate, over something overly "artsy" does not imply any lack of effort on the designers part.
Regards,
Stephen
wavelength devices
http://www.track0.com/wavelength/