Hey Will,
I know that many people have offered comments to your email, let me please also add a $0.2.You write:
"I don't use any Apple, nor any Microsoft kit, so don't feel obliged to adhere
to their diktats. Indeed I *specifically* want to get away from other people
telling me what I should do; how I should 'experience' the computer."
While I totally get this attitude and this is the attitude that many people in the free software world share, I believe that it is often used inappropriately.
In this context we are not talking about making a piece of software for oneself and not even creating a customize paradise. We are talking about making a tool for musicians that has to be efficient and would first of all serve the goal of making music (or designing sounds). Whereas very often the attitude you are demonstrating, while by no means "incorrect" and is really a matter of preference, has as the dominant goal to be different - just to be different (as you said, you specifically want to get away from people telling you what to do).
But also I would say that I don't see usability and practical UI advice to be someone telling you what to do. It is just a very unusual perspective to me. It's like someone looking at a recipe of a pie and considering it to be insulting that someone dares dictate to the great chef how he has to cook his pie. But the context of a recipe has nothing to do with dictating anything to anyone, it is an instruction how to prepare this exact type of pie.
Additionally, I sometimes get the feeling that any guidelines coming from commercial projects are perceived as mere opinions in a manner similar to preference for color. But, as Paul pointed out, very often these guidelines are the result of years of high quality software development and testing and research.
Apple or whoever is "issuing dictates" are doing this as a result of looking at how professionals work and analyzing how they are utilizing software.I think it is very important to approach software rationally and stop looking for oppression where none exists.
Louigi.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Tilo Kremer <lau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29.04.2016 16:34, Len Ovens wrote:
>> For some reason, I find sliders easier to operate, physically and
>> onscreen, but I like knobs for some functions. I find onscreen
>> knobs less easy to operate. Guess I'm weird.
>
> In my opinion... knobs and sliders should operate the same. The
> mouse moves in a straight line either sideways or vertical.
>
> In other words, the widget's most
> important goal is to show the control's position. The mouse movement
> to change that control can be independant of that.
>
> My favourite knobs are operated with either/or right to left, down
> to up. There is also no reason a horizontal slider needs to be
> locked to only horizontal mouse movement or a vertical slider to
> only vertical movment. (don't knock it till you've used it for a month)
+1 on that. The advantage of differently sized and arranged icons is
the recognizability of the state it is set to. With icons of faders
it will use a lot more screen real estate when trying to convey a
topological structure though.
I guess the question between icons resembling either pots or faders
doesn't fully cut to the essence.
While I might prefer knobs for an envelope to use in a live context,
I concur that the faders in the additive synth totally make sense
and would be ridiculous with knobs.
hth,
tee
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
http://www.louigiverona.com/
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
