zynaddsubfx concept ui

Programming applications for making music on Linux.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

tatch
Established Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:18 pm

zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by tatch »

lately I've gotten tired of using noisemaker, and one of the synths i started playing around with again is zyn, which for all its shortcomings is rather decent (as everyone has heard) and ridiculously configurable. But its interface is as terrible as its engine is powerful and even though male's reskin made it look a little nicer it didn't change the actual interface design. I'm no designer but it's fun to try so I drafted a conceptual ui redesign for zyn with some design cues from ableton live (per usual), massive and sylenth. The main thing for me was putting everything into one window and tabbing the hell out of it. If you actually enjoy opening up 5 separate windows to change the wave type, or if you have an enormous screen and must be able to see every single parameter of zyn, I guess you won't like this ui but no worries because it doesn't actually exist.

There are a number of missing pieces: for example there should be knobs and such in the grey boxes titled "params" that i was too lazy to put in. There are also most likely parameters I didn't think of that need representation. I also focused heavily on the adsynth since I've never really used the subsynth or padsynth, so I was operating under the assumption that those uis would basically be the same for now (but in tabs instead of separate windows).

I tried to make a mockup using fluid but i have little experience with FL/NTK and GUI things in general, going through zyn's existing fluid files was tiring, and i got bored before i figured out how to make custom widgets so I stopped. I still kinda like the design though so maybe one day I'll try to actually make it again.
zyn ui redesign.png
zyn ui redesign.png (141.12 KiB) Viewed 2225 times
I don't know about the colors but that's hardly the most important detail. Mainly I want to address the accessibility and intuitiveness of parameter placement, presentation and interactivity.

I should note that this design is making the [false] assumption that there's only one instrument in zyn, which isn't actually true of zyn as it currently is. IIRC, you can have like 16 instruments in zyn each individually controllable via different midi channels. (As a standalone program this may make sense but as a plugin this is just stupid, most importantly because it mixes all its audio down to 2 channels internally; but it shouldn't even do that as a standalone.) Since there's only one instrument basically the whole top-level window is useless. No system effects, also no banks, also no midi channel or controller stuff (or if there were controller stuff it'd be hidden in a menu somewhere). etc.

Now a walk-through of the main design elements:

-at the top are tabs for adsynth, subsynth, padsynth and insertion fx with vu meters for the synth engines.
-right below the tabs are the master controls along with the master vu meter, master controls&mixer are always there.
-the adsynth voices list is on the right. Click on the white square (which will have a mini waveform) to edit that voice, the selected voice is highlighted. The two checkboxes at the right are "voice enable" and "resonancy" (as indicated by the "r"). The global adsynth is selectable at the top and differs from the other voice pages in that it lacks the "mod" and "osc" tabs (below the big waveform at the top left). There are VU meters, and also 4 modifiable parameters: volume, pan, detune and vibrato. More on the rectangular parameter element later.
-at the top left is the waveform for the current voice. to the right of that (in the grey box titled osc params) are the oscillator parameters like phase and spread. you can modify the waveform by pressing the osc tab underneath it (which for now will be pretty much the same as the current one.
-below the big waveform are the amp/filter/frequency envelopes, pretty self-explanatory, additional parameters that weren't listed in "more params". you can press the mod tab to change the modulator, which follows a similar format as the amp/filter/frequency page.
-tooltip at the bottom that helps you figure out what the hell you're doing (hopefully) and also possibly displays values, and a panic button in case everything goes wrong (naturally).

The strange blue rectangle that has replaced almost all of the knobs/sliders is a heavily-weighted horizontal slider that you interact with either via scrolling or by dragging up or down. A couple of things here:
1) for some reason all the knobs/sliders in LAU are very "loose"; none of them have any "weight" to them and end up flying all over the place even if you just want to nudge them up a few cents
2) I hate sliders in general because they usually take up a lot of screen real estate
3) I hate vertical sliders for everything that isn't volume control
4) I hate horizontal sliders because my wrists don't move like that
5) I like knobs but they're a rather silly skeuomorphism and don't actually make any sense as a computer interface element other than looking nice while just being a slider in disguise

Basically the point is that sliders might be nice if they looked similar to a knob, at least in size. These mini-sliders are small and horizontal but they are treated like vertical sliders/knobs, and I think they look pretty neat too. The sliders in the amp/filter/freq section have the added bonus of being able to display their actual values.

So that's my zynaddsubfx concept ui redesign. Comments and suggestions are welcome, If anyone wants to actually implement this that would also be awesome. If not I'll pick at it every now and then probably until someone else releases a ui redesign (which will likely happen before I finish)
zynlogo.png
zynlogo.png (24.95 KiB) Viewed 2225 times
dumb logo
ssj71
Established Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by ssj71 »

Some nice ideas. Its good to discuss this (and make proposals) rather than simply criticize the existing GUI.
I like the organization, seems pretty clean, most used stuff is most accessible, draws attention by size. I think one of the top tabs should probably be the main window the preset dialog etc. I like the colorscheme too.
The major challenge with zyn is of course real estate/scalability. How do you make a good clean interface without taking up a full 1920x1080 screen? Your ideas favor the larger and less clutter side while the original seems to value small screen footprint. I like the idea of tabs rather than separate windows, personally. I always seem to misplace them :)
The idea that I'm most doubtful about in here I think is to have horizontal sliders that only operate by moving vertically. That just seems like it wouldn't be well recieved, though I sympathize with your thoughts on the subject. Perhaps horizontal movement could be a "rough" movement with fine tuning done vertically.
Some time ought to be spent with the other synth engines too, at least to verify they could reasonably fit in this paradigm. I actually use the sub synth more often than the add, neither of which is very often though.
_ssj71

music: https://soundcloud.com/ssj71
My plugins are Infamous! http://ssj71.github.io/infamousPlugins
I just want to get back to making music!
tatch
Established Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by tatch »

Some nice ideas. Its good to discuss this (and make proposals) rather than simply criticize the existing GUI.
agree. That's the value of having a community right?
I like the organization, seems pretty clean, most used stuff is most accessible, draws attention by size. I think one of the top tabs should probably be the main window the preset dialog etc. I like the colorscheme too.
thanks, I was trying to strike a balance between modernity/minimalism and elegance (zyn just seems really classy to me for some reason), hence the suede/velvety red and turquoise combined with crisp, smooth, bright lines and some slightly-rounded elements. Initially I rounded most all the boxes but I decided that was too future/computer-y so instead I used normal rectangles. Not sure if I accomplished any of that but it was fun to think about.

Having a "main" tab is totally doable, didn't think of that. Hopefully that's only a stopgap measure though because I still think it's a dumb feature (particularly for the future plugin version. I could see how it'd be nice standalone, and falkTX also mentioned multichannel-out is on the roadmap).
The major challenge with zyn is of course real estate/scalability. How do you make a good clean interface without taking up a full 1920x1080 screen? Your ideas favor the larger and less clutter side while the original seems to value small screen footprint. I like the idea of tabs rather than separate windows, personally. I always seem to misplace them :)
That was one of the things I thought about when sketching this up. I think the current size of this mockup is pretty reasonable. It's a little larger than sylenth and I think around the same size as massive. And when you factor in all the windows of the original design i think it's actually a good deal more compact; much more manageable anyhow. I think there's some room to tighten up the UI more if need be, and it might also be able to be scaled down a bit.
The idea that I'm most doubtful about in here I think is to have horizontal sliders that only operate by moving vertically. That just seems like it wouldn't be well recieved, though I sympathize with your thoughts on the subject. Perhaps horizontal movement could be a "rough" movement with fine tuning done vertically.
The idea for these sliders came from using ableton live's operator. In the picture, the parameters in orange and yellow text are modifiable by clicking and dragging up and down to increase/decrease. It might seem strange but it actually feels very comfortable and intuitive, and it's additionally quite nice to see the actual values of the parameters. The "vertically-draggable horizontal slider" idea is sort of an extension of this that also provides information about the bounds of the parameter via the fullness/emptiness of the slider.

Really, though, actual horizontal sliders don't make any ergonomic sense and don't make much else sense (except for screen real estate, but that's equally solvable with knobs) besides for horizontal scroll areas. If the visual indicator really trips people up that badly I'd rather get rid of it and just show the values like in ableton live.

Another thing is that even though some of the options are different types of widgets (e.g. how the wave option is just a drop-down box) it still takes up about the same amount of pixels and looks basically the same as the other elements. Similarly, things like "lin" and "fr" actually pushbuttons and "filter type" could be the same as the other ones or it could be a drop-down box. This isn't essential but I think it's kind of nice. If need be we could add a little arrow next to the drop-down boxes.
Some time ought to be spent with the other synth engines too, at least to verify they could reasonably fit in this paradigm. I actually use the sub synth more often than the add, neither of which is very often though.
I drew up some half-baked mockups of what it could look like. I think it would work. There are some places where space is unused, but I think adjusting the sizes of a few of the different elements would be pretty simple to do.

While I was googling pictures of the padsynth I happened across renoise's version of padsynth, which looks great. Definitely something to consider when reconstructing the padsynth ui.

We can also take some design cues from zynzilla, which was inspired by zyn. Of interest is the way the vertical sliders efficiently use space. Definitely something to keep in mind when actually redesigning the oscillator editor and the subsynth.

Image Image Image Image Image

some more logos
Image Image Image Image Image
male
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by male »

Why do I feel like it's the blind leading the blind here? :wink:
Image
male
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by male »

Oh, and for some actual constructive criticism: If you forget about inventing new widgets and/or ripping off Ableton Live et al and just figure out a way to express everything ZynAddSubFX can do in a signle (larger!) window, that would solve 99% of the problems with the current interface. It would also be a lot easier to actually accomplish via copying/pasting and tweaking the .fl files. Swapping out the knobs should not be a priority, IMHO, as the current ones do work fine, regardless of how you feel about knobs (not a fan myself either, but neither am I a fan of half-baked bastardizations of sliders [anyone remember those Phat fansliders? Or the new sliders in the GIMP? Barf]).
Image
ssj71
Established Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by ssj71 »

male wrote:Why do I feel like it's the blind leading the blind here? :wink:
Cause this is a subjective subject. Nobody "knows" what a good gui is.
male wrote:figure out a way to express everything ZynAddSubFX can do in a signle (larger!) window, that would solve 99% of the problems with the current interface.
I agree, though I'm trying to figure out if you mean no tabs or not...
_ssj71

music: https://soundcloud.com/ssj71
My plugins are Infamous! http://ssj71.github.io/infamousPlugins
I just want to get back to making music!
male
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by male »

ssj71 wrote:
male wrote:Why do I feel like it's the blind leading the blind here? :wink:
Cause this is a subjective subject. Nobody "knows" what a good gui is.
male wrote:figure out a way to express everything ZynAddSubFX can do in a signle (larger!) window, that would solve 99% of the problems with the current interface.
I agree, though I'm trying to figure out if you mean no tabs or not...
I think tabs are going to be necessary--with all the different synths, voices all that, there's no way you could really make it all visible at once, and having some giant thing that you have to scroll around wouldn't be any more usable than the current interface. The point is that *every* *little* *thing* has to be accounted for. That's the hard work of the design and thinking about how to change the color scheme is ignoring the real problem. Someone needs to find a place for every single control in ZynAddSubFX, and, moreover, a place that is somehow better/more usable than where how things are currently arranged. This is no small undertaking considering the scope of ZynAddSubFX's UI.
Image
fundamental
Established Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by fundamental »

I think a major issue with any set redesign is that it is very likely to cater to the use cases of the designer and overlook how other people use it. People seem to use the current UI in many very different ways as it stands.

Due to the shear number of options there are, tabs seem to make sense and the popularity of the knobs is likely tied to how few pixels you can make them take up, though they used to take up a lot more space each before the options started multiplying like rabbits.

As it stands I not entirely sure what extra utility this concept introduces, though I'm certainly not well versed in making tools designed for general usability and I am likely biased in my own habits of use with the existing user interface.
male
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by male »

fundamental wrote:I think a major issue with any set redesign is that it is very likely to cater to the use cases of the designer and overlook how other people use it. People seem to use the current UI in many very different ways as it stands.

Due to the shear number of options there are, tabs seem to make sense and the popularity of the knobs is likely tied to how few pixels you can make them take up, though they used to take up a lot more space each before the options started multiplying like rabbits.

As it stands I not entirely sure what extra utility this concept introduces, though I'm certainly not well versed in making tools designed for general usability and I am likely biased in my own habits of use with the existing user interface.
Right. I can think of 4 usecases off hand, three of which are supported by the current interface.

1. Headless like-an-instrument pure MIDI/OSC operation
2. Simple I-just-want-to-play interface that provides GUI controls for things that can be controlled by MIDI/OSC, but which the user might not have a good controller to attach to
3. White-lab-coat instrument editing/sound design interface.
4. Emo-hair-cut interface which provides enough tweakable options to affect the sound in 'cool' ways, but is significantly less complex and more abstract than the sound design mode.

#1-#3 already exist and work fine. I think even the simple and advanced views are redundant as there's little difference other than the vkeybd and neither is as complex as a single one of the instrument edit windows.

#4 is what is missing, and what I think people are trying to say they want. They want to put on their Skrillex wig and play around, without necessarily having to understand how the synthesis engines work. They want all of the relevant controls to be visible at once, because they indtend to fiddle them until they get the sound they like, and that's hard to do when the interface is spread across 10 windows.
Image
ssj71
Established Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by ssj71 »

Excellent points male. I think tatch was approaching use case #4. He didn't worry about all the little parameters that bad-haircut folk won't know what to do with anyway (though he provided some limited space for them). The most significant parameters are the largest and most accessible. It is best though as you point out to focus on these real usability points for a top down design rather than the widgets and color scheme in a bottom up design.
_ssj71

music: https://soundcloud.com/ssj71
My plugins are Infamous! http://ssj71.github.io/infamousPlugins
I just want to get back to making music!
tatch
Established Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by tatch »

fundamental wrote:I think a major issue with any set redesign is that it is very likely to cater to the use cases of the designer and overlook how other people use it. People seem to use the current UI in many very different ways as it stands...As it stands I not entirely sure what extra utility this concept introduces, though I'm certainly not well versed in making tools designed for general usability and I am likely biased in my own habits of use with the existing user interface.
This is true, and it's the "responsiblity" of the designer to clarify the intent of the redesign. My intent in designing this concept was to

1)expose the features typically nested under 4-5 separate windows at the forefront reasonably and intuitively. this includes
-rearranging all the windows into a single tabbed window that is hopefully less than 1366x768 (I think the last design I posted was around 1000x800) to accomodate the "smallest-reasonable" screen resolution
-simplifying overcomplicated/unnecessarily large elements to reduce bloat and screen real-estate (e.g. the voices list, the harmonics sliders (which I haven't yet fleshed out))
-clearly presenting parameters and implying what they do (e.g. the graphic filter envelopes. I still need to think about representing zyn's ability to make numerous D/S's)
-clearly labeling everything, because who the hell knows what frcR/a.r./f.r/c./relBW/rnd grp/L/r./p.stc. is?
-clearly labeling the values of the controls (via the positions of the sliders and meaningful values overlayed on them (e.g. "100ms" instead of "20" (out of 127)))
-eliminating duplicate controls (e.g. the volume controls in the voices list and the volume control in the adsynth voice parameters)
-hiding things like "frcR" that typically aren't changed (at least according to the manual) in right-click menus or something (still deliberating)
-maintaining a reasonable level of consistency in the interface (e.g. presenting the global adsynth parameters and the voice parameters as essentially the same thing, since they are, and maintaining the positions of the amp/freq/filter envs in the ad/subsynths to visually demonstrate their equivalency)
-suggesting smarter, more productive methods of representing synth parameters (e.g. improving the way you interact with the harmonics sliders of all the synths)

2)suggest an alternative to sliders, which take up too much screen real estate/are ergonomically awkward, and to knobs, which, while they do look nice and are space-efficient, do not necessarily make "sense" in a virtual interface on a screen because they're supposed to be rotated, which isn't a reasonable method of interaction with a mouse.

I haven't done all of these things yet but I hope I've made clear what I'd like to accomplish and why. Also I guess I should point out that point #1 is entirely achievable even without point #2 since everyone seems so opposed to it, but I still strongly believe an alternative to knobs/sliders deserves to be investigated, and I think my suggestion/the general concept would notably improve the way you interact with zyn.
male wrote: Right. I can think of 4 usecases off hand, three of which are supported by the current interface.

1. Headless like-an-instrument pure MIDI/OSC operation
2. Simple I-just-want-to-play interface that provides GUI controls for things that can be controlled by MIDI/OSC, but which the user might not have a good controller to attach to
3. White-lab-coat instrument editing/sound design interface.
4. Emo-hair-cut interface which provides enough tweakable options to affect the sound in 'cool' ways, but is significantly less complex and more abstract than the sound design mode.

#1-#3 already exist and work fine. I think even the simple and advanced views are redundant as there's little difference other than the vkeybd and neither is as complex as a single one of the instrument edit windows.

#4 is what is missing, and what I think people are trying to say they want. They want to put on their Skrillex wig and play around, without necessarily having to understand how the synthesis engines work. They want all of the relevant controls to be visible at once, because they indtend to fiddle them until they get the sound they like, and that's hard to do when the interface is spread across 10 windows.
You seem to insinuate that I'm trying to simplify a bloated and archaic interface just because I don't "understand how the synthesis engines work". I do have at least the slightest of an inkling of how additive/subtractive/FM synthesis works--by no means do I claim to be an expert, but I actually do feel quite confident in understanding how each synth parameter alters the output. I'm comfortable with synths like noisemaker, sylenth, operator, the stuff in bristol, etc; and it'd be great if zynaddsubfx's interface were even half as neat (as in competently-designed) as any of those, but it isn't. It bothers me that there are so many parameters in zyn that I can't meaningfully adjust without having to 1)open up 5 different windows to get to them 2)look up what the hell all the 4-letter abbreviations mean in the linuxaudiowiki zynaddsubfx manual and if they even do anything/are worth modifying (like frcR). It's great that we have the option to modify even the most minute things, but if they are only used very infrequently it doesn't make sense for those things to be given the same priority (i.e. screen real-estate) as other very-frequently modified parameters (and at the same time they should still be clearly labeled).

But still, you are right in that my suggestions would make it easier for kids with "skrillex wigs" to use zyn (though real posers use presets), and softening the learning curve of zyn (while still maintaining its complexity) hardly seems like a bad thing.

Additionally I've been under the impression that currently only a handful of controls in zyn are actually controllable by midi, though work is being done to expose all of them. And if you consider cluttered, bloated, poorly-designed interfaces to be lab-worthy then I suppose you're right about that; maybe we should aspire for all of our interfaces to be like that too!

I agree that even just combining the windows of the current interface would be quite an improvement to the UI (even better if the knobs are given friction), but from my limited design perspective I still see a number of improvements that would significantly enhance the zynaddsubfx experience.
male
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by male »

tatch wrote: You seem to insinuate that I'm trying to simplify a bloated and archaic interface just because I don't "understand how the synthesis engines work". I do have at least the slightest of an inkling of how additive/subtractive/FM synthesis works--by no means do I claim to be an expert, but I actually do feel quite confident in understanding how each synth parameter alters the output. I'm comfortable with synths like noisemaker, sylenth, operator, the stuff in bristol, etc; and it'd be great if zynaddsubfx's interface were even half as neat (as in competently-designed) as any of those, but it isn't. It bothers me that there are so many parameters in zyn that I can't meaningfully adjust without having to 1)open up 5 different windows to get to them 2)look up what the hell all the 4-letter abbreviations mean in the linuxaudiowiki zynaddsubfx manual and if they even do anything/are worth modifying (like frcR). It's great that we have the option to modify even the most minute things, but if they are only used very infrequently it doesn't make sense for those things to be given the same priority (i.e. screen real-estate) as other very-frequently modified parameters (and at the same time they should still be clearly labeled).
The fact that you don't have the interface, control functions, label meanings etc. memorized is exactly what I mean by "not understanding the synthesis engines". You start by saying that I'm insulting you by wrongly assuming you don't understand the thing, and then you go on to explain all the ways in which you don't understand it. For the record, I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm in full agreement that the current instrument editing interface has quite a steep learning curve attached to it and that not everyone should be expected to understand (or even need) it. Some people need it though. Those white-lab-coat wearing sound designers who actually understand what all those controls are for.
thatch wrote: But still, you are right in that my suggestions would make it easier for kids with "skrillex wigs" to use zyn (though real posers use presets), and softening the learning curve of zyn (while still maintaining its complexity) hardly seems like a bad thing.
Nope. It's not a bad thing at all.
thatch wrote: Additionally I've been under the impression that currently only a handful of controls in zyn are actually controllable by midi, though work is being done to expose all of them. And if you consider cluttered, bloated, poorly-designed interfaces to be lab-worthy then I suppose you're right about that; maybe we should aspire for all of our interfaces to be like that too!
When you call Zyn's interface bloated and poorly designed, I find it hard to take you seriously. The interface is complex, but only because the thing it controls is complex. ZynAddSubFX basically has a 1:1 control/function interface. That's not bad design, it's a design that is considered necessary for the task at hand (#3, sound design). It's just and overly-complex design if you consider only the #4 use-case.
Image
fundamental
Established Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by fundamental »

tatch wrote: 1)expose the features typically nested under 4-5 separate windows at the forefront reasonably and intuitively. this includes
-rearranging all the windows into a single tabbed window that is hopefully less than 1366x768 (I think the last design I posted was around 1000x800) to accomodate the "smallest-reasonable" screen resolution
I guess that means that I don't have a reasonable screen size then :p
I have had my 1280x1024 screen for ages, which might put me in the minority on this issue.
tatch wrote: -simplifying overcomplicated/unnecessarily large elements to reduce bloat and screen real-estate (e.g. the voices list, the harmonics sliders (which I haven't yet fleshed out))
Folding some of these entries into window drawers might be an option, though I don't know if there is a nice/easy way to get that into fltk.
tatch wrote: -clearly presenting parameters and implying what they do (e.g. the graphic filter envelopes. I still need to think about representing zyn's ability to make numerous D/S's)
Adding graphics when possible is certainly desirable in the majority of use cases when there is still some available real estate.
tatch wrote: -clearly labeling everything, because who the hell knows what frcR/a.r./f.r/c./relBW/rnd grp/L/r./p.stc. is?
I guess you have not seen the tooltips then. They do a decent job at elaborating what the terse names are, which is justifies the truncated names IMO.
tatch wrote: -clearly labeling the values of the controls (via the positions of the sliders and meaningful values overlayed on them (e.g. "100ms" instead of "20" (out of 127)))
You'll go insane if you try to get that to work in the UI alone.
This is something that I'd say would be rather useful to get implemented, but it is a bit tricky.
I have been trying to introduce some better data viewing handles when implementing some of the OSC interface to things, but this extra convenience layer on top of the basic OSC communication is nowhere near completion.
tatch wrote: -eliminating duplicate controls (e.g. the volume controls in the voices list and the volume control in the adsynth voice parameters)
If you're trying to condense everything into one complete view of everything at once, that makes sense, but it does not really seem to hold up when you consider that they can be different views for different uses.
It might be handy to be able to tweak the volume of something while working on its parameters and then later it may be handy to have an overview of all the volumes in the instrument for instance.
tatch wrote: -hiding things like "frcR" that typically aren't changed (at least according to the manual) in right-click menus or something (still deliberating)
That's a tricky thing to decide and this is where one's own bias will end up showing by making various controls second class citizens.
It's possible to go down this road, but it sure is tricky.
tatch wrote: -maintaining a reasonable level of consistency in the interface (e.g. presenting the global adsynth parameters and the voice parameters as essentially the same thing, since they are, and maintaining the positions of the amp/freq/filter envs in the ad/subsynths to visually demonstrate their equivalency)
Yes and no, they are very very similar, though there are differences between the parameters offered at each level and some slight differences in how they behave (with actual reasons behind such).
tatch wrote: 2)suggest an alternative to sliders, which take up too much screen real estate/are ergonomically awkward, and to knobs, which, while they do look nice and are space-efficient, do not necessarily make "sense" in a virtual interface on a screen because they're supposed to be rotated, which isn't a reasonable method of interaction with a mouse.
Well, you can stick with knobs while giving them slider like motion, though there is some debate whether that is a good idea or not.
tatch wrote: Additionally I've been under the impression that currently only a handful of controls in zyn are actually controllable by midi, though work is being done to expose all of them.
Once I get some time to finish up the work up on the last 0.01% of the controls all of the knobs, sliders, selection boxes, check boxes, etc can be controlled externally.
I will admit that the UX for setting up the MIDI linkages is utter rubbish at the moment, but I'll have to try fixing that once I have time enough to work on things again.
tatch wrote:(even better if the knobs are given friction)
Feel free to disagree with this, but if I had an open source program give knobs friction against what I tell it to do with the mouse I would be motivated to get the source and remove the friction myself.
I might not know what kind of action you are referring to here though.
ZynAddSubFX maintainer
male
Established Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by male »

fundamental wrote:
tatch wrote:(even better if the knobs are given friction)
Feel free to disagree with this, but if I had an open source program give knobs friction against what I tell it to do with the mouse I would be motivated to get the source and remove the friction myself.
I might not know what kind of action you are referring to here though.
I think he's talking about Applesque simulated flywheel effects and whatnot--where you can 'flick' a dial and it'll keep spinning from the momentum.
Image
tatch
Established Member
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: zynaddsubfx concept ui

Post by tatch »

male wrote:
fundamental wrote:
tatch wrote:(even better if the knobs are given friction)
Feel free to disagree with this, but if I had an open source program give knobs friction against what I tell it to do with the mouse I would be motivated to get the source and remove the friction myself.
I might not know what kind of action you are referring to here though.
I think he's talking about Applesque simulated flywheel effects and whatnot--where you can 'flick' a dial and it'll keep spinning from the momentum.
No, I meant knobs (and slders) like tal noisemaker's that aren't mapped on a 1-1 scale with mouse movement/scrolling. I think it gives better control of parameters. A few apps have the option for "fine-tuning" knobs by holding control or shift, so I guess this is would just be a light version of that.
Post Reply