Topic: Preview 2.23: Redesigned group panel

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 256 total)
1 2 3 … 10 11 12 … 16 17 18
  • November 16, 2009 at 09:02 #16746
    thcilnnahoj
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    I’ve implemented a new “slider with value popup” control type, which I’m considering making the default, as shown in the screenshot. Moving the mouse over for example a send slider will show “Send: -3.20 dB” in a popup above the control. Often you don’t need the full decimal value indicated all the time. I think it helps clean up the UI.

    While I agree that you’re better off not seeing numbers (and thus maybe mixing by them) all the time, I don’t understand why it would be better to have them (re)moved in the mixer. Since the faders’ numerical values are represented there at all times, they might as well be right next to or on top of the faders themselves. I see no need for separate fields dedicated to just this. That being said, it seems 9 out of 10 sequencers have been doing it this way all along, so there must be something I’m missing.
    If it stays like this, I would propose to rotate the volume fader head by 90° (and maybe round off its corners). Since the numbers are gone, and you don’t have to click directly on the fader to move it anyways, I don’t see a reason for it to be as long/big. Also, the dB scale wouldn’t be overlapped anymore like this.

    I’ve tried adding some space between the strips (again), and drawing a frame around the selected strip, similar to the key focus frame drawn around list boxes. Eventually I would like to do the same with the track lane headers. Any opinions on this new style?

    I think we’ve gotten to know the frame as just that – an indicator of which list receives keyboard focus in Podium. The actually selected item within the list would still be highlighted with a fully colored box (you can tell I don’t know UI design terminology!). In this case however, the mixer strip is the item… A little confusing, maybe, but I do like how it looks, so please continue. 🙂
    Perhaps it’d be worth a try to have the strip background itself receive just a small amount of the focus color along with the frame. On the other hand it might become a total wash with three colors mixed together.
    It would also probably be good if the change over to ‘selection framing’ on the track headers would appear in 2.23 already, for consistency’s sake. Also, I wonder if you’re thinking of applying this to items in the arrangement too, seeing as they don’t have any visible controls that would suffer from being dyed.

    Other comments on the latest screenshot:
    – Personally, I still prefer those faders shaped like pills (elongated beans? :D), with or without value display. The round ones seem so small, especially since the BSMREX buttons just got bigger.

    – I find the horizontal fader grooves are too dark, as in too much shadow. The vertical ones look nice, as does the new box around the peak display. The ‘glow’ inside the grooves looks blurry for my tastes, compared to the perfectly sharp 1-pixel glow in previous versions.

    Little addition to the buglist:
    – When you drag-and-drop an instrument from one track to another, the “drop here” box overlay on the track becomes stuck.

    November 16, 2009 at 09:08 #16747
    thcilnnahoj
    Participant

    @LiquidProj3ct wrote:

    I should ask, without trying to be too perfectionist, why do you use a brighter colour in the top of each strip (‘Acoustic Guitar’ & ‘Chords’) and you don’t do it in ‘Track 3’ and ‘Master’?

    Those tracks simply have no color assigned to them! 🙂

    November 16, 2009 at 09:25 #16748
    kyran
    Participant

    As it stands now there is no quick way to bypass an effect using the mixer view (if I’m seeing things correctly).

    Why not do it the same as in the group panel: show an x on each of the effects (like you’re doing on the inputs now) and use the rest of the effect slot as a toggle to show the interface?

    November 16, 2009 at 11:54 #16749
    LiquidProj3ct
    Participant

    @thcilnnahoj wrote:

    @LiquidProj3ct wrote:

    I should ask, without trying to be too perfectionist, why do you use a brighter colour in the top of each strip (‘Acoustic Guitar’ & ‘Chords’) and you don’t do it in ‘Track 3’ and ‘Master’?

    Those tracks simply have no color assigned to them! 🙂

    Uhmmm well, yes! But I wanted to mean that maybe the tracks that have a colour assigned shouldn’t have those bright colours on top of their strips. Just a matter of taste, nothing important 🙂

    @kyran wrote:

    As it stands now there is no quick way to bypass an effect using the mixer view (if I’m seeing things correctly).

    If I understand you, Shift+Left click is the quick way to bypass them. Anyway, as Frits stated, you can make visible the bypass buttons in mixer options.

    November 16, 2009 at 14:07 #16752
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @LiquidProj3ct wrote:

    @thcilnnahoj wrote:

    @LiquidProj3ct wrote:

    I should ask, without trying to be too perfectionist, why do you use a brighter colour in the top of each strip (‘Acoustic Guitar’ & ‘Chords’) and you don’t do it in ‘Track 3’ and ‘Master’?

    Those tracks simply have no color assigned to them! 🙂

    Uhmmm well, yes! But I wanted to mean that maybe the tracks that have a colour assigned shouldn’t have those bright colours on top of their strips. Just a matter of taste, nothing important 🙂

    The bright color at the top in my screenshot is the actual color I selected for the track. If you don’t like bright colors, then just select darker color tones in the inspector color picker. I don’t like brightly colored tracks myself, but this screenshot was made as a quick test.

    November 16, 2009 at 14:37 #16753
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @thcilnnahoj wrote:

    @Zynewave wrote:

    I’ve implemented a new “slider with value popup” control type, which I’m considering making the default, as shown in the screenshot. Moving the mouse over for example a send slider will show “Send: -3.20 dB” in a popup above the control. Often you don’t need the full decimal value indicated all the time. I think it helps clean up the UI.

    While I agree that you’re better off not seeing numbers (and thus maybe mixing by them) all the time, I don’t understand why it would be better to have them (re)moved in the mixer. Since the faders’ numerical values are represented there at all times, they might as well be right next to or on top of the faders themselves. I see no need for separate fields dedicated to just this. That being said, it seems 9 out of 10 sequencers have been doing it this way all along, so there must be something I’m missing.

    It’s just the new default setting. You can still enable the “slider with value on knob” option in the mixer region properties. This will apply to all send/gain/pan sliders. My goal has been a cleaner default look, and I think removing the values from the knobs achieves that. The gain/pan value text display uses a larger font, and thus is easier to read. It also provides for a single-click access to the value input in the track properties dialog.

    I’ve tried adding some space between the strips (again), and drawing a frame around the selected strip, similar to the key focus frame drawn around list boxes. Eventually I would like to do the same with the track lane headers. Any opinions on this new style?

    I think we’ve gotten to know the frame as just that – an indicator of which list receives keyboard focus in Podium. The actually selected item within the list would still be highlighted with a fully colored box (you can tell I don’t know UI design terminology!). In this case however, the mixer strip is the item… A little confusing, maybe, but I do like how it looks, so please continue. 🙂

    And that’s the reason why I so far have colored the entire header/strip with the select color. But quite often it just doesn’t look good, especially with the new button style headers. I also found it annoying that you can’t see the track header update in realtime when using the color picker, as the header would always be painted with the select color.

    It would also probably be good if the change over to ‘selection framing’ on the track headers would appear in 2.23 already, for consistency’s sake. Also, I wonder if you’re thinking of applying this to items in the arrangement too, seeing as they don’t have any visible controls that would suffer from being dyed.

    I plan to adjust the track lane headers before releasing 2.23. In fact I plan to experiment with changing the entire group bar hierarchy display in the tracks region, so that it matches the group header display used in the mixer. Try to imagine the mixer strips turned on the side. This means that the left edge of the track headers will no longer be offset horizontally according to their hierarchy position. This will ensure that e.g. all gain/pan sliders are aligned vertically, no matter what the hierarchy level the track is at. Any opinions on this?

    Other comments on the latest screenshot:
    – Personally, I still prefer those faders shaped like pills (elongated beans? :D), with or without value display. The round ones seem so small, especially since the BSMREX buttons just got bigger.

    The slider can still be grabbed by clicking inside the entire slider frame, so it has not become harder to adjust the value. Having a smaller knob also means that the knob can travel a longer distance in the slider groove, resulting in greater precision.

    November 17, 2009 at 10:23 #16755
    thcilnnahoj
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    I plan to adjust the track lane headers before releasing 2.23. In fact I plan to experiment with changing the entire group bar hierarchy display in the tracks region, so that it matches the group header display used in the mixer. Try to imagine the mixer strips turned on the side. This means that the left edge of the track headers will no longer be offset horizontally according to their hierarchy position. This will ensure that e.g. all gain/pan sliders are aligned vertically, no matter what the hierarchy level the track is at. Any opinions on this?

    I have a hard time picturing this. Wouldn’t it mean that all tracks moved more and more to the right, instead of only child tracks becoming indented, as the number of “group level strips” (for lack of a better word) increases?

    Something like this?

    November 17, 2009 at 11:05 #16757
    Conquistador
    Participant

    @kyran wrote:

    As it stands now there is no quick way to bypass an effect using the mixer view (if I’m seeing things correctly).

    I think the current Shift+Left click should not be the default as a user would not immeadiately know that combo. Its too important IMO to have a user go through any click + button combo just to bypass a plugin every time. :-s

    A step backward here IMO. I personally think functions like this need to be as accessible and as simple to use as possible. I dont’t think having a visible bypass button crowds the mixer look and feel in anyway. That kind of button is needed IMO. There is only so much that can be hidden before it becomes a negative instead of a positive.

    November 17, 2009 at 13:37 #16758
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @thcilnnahoj wrote:

    @Zynewave wrote:

    I plan to adjust the track lane headers before releasing 2.23. In fact I plan to experiment with changing the entire group bar hierarchy display in the tracks region, so that it matches the group header display used in the mixer. Try to imagine the mixer strips turned on the side. This means that the left edge of the track headers will no longer be offset horizontally according to their hierarchy position. This will ensure that e.g. all gain/pan sliders are aligned vertically, no matter what the hierarchy level the track is at. Any opinions on this?

    I have a hard time picturing this. Wouldn’t it mean that all tracks moved more and more to the right, instead of only child tracks becoming indented, as the number of “group level strips” (for lack of a better word) increases?

    Something like this?

    Yes, something like that. Thanks for the mockup. There are pros and cons with that layout. One advantage (IMO) is that you get all controls/track names vertically aligned on all the tracks. Some may think that this improves the overview, while others may think the lack of indentation of the track names disrupts the overview. Personally I think indentation works well in for example a file folder list, but I often find it confusing that the track header controls are shifted around according to group level position. What do people think?

    November 17, 2009 at 13:44 #16759
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @Conquistador wrote:

    @kyran wrote:

    As it stands now there is no quick way to bypass an effect using the mixer view (if I’m seeing things correctly).

    I think the current Shift+Left click should not be the default as a user would not immeadiately know that combo. Its too important IMO to have a user go through any click + button combo just to bypass a plugin every time. :-s

    A step backward here IMO. I personally think functions like this need to be as accessible and as simple to use as possible. I dont’t think having a visible bypass button crowds the mixer look and feel in anyway. That kind of button is needed IMO. There is only so much that can be hidden before it becomes a negative instead of a positive.

    Is it really that often that the average user will be bypassing individual effects? I often don’t use bypassing at all. Perhaps other users can post whether they think single-click bypass is essential?

    As I said earlier, there is a “show bypass buttons” option in the mixer options menu. You also have the possibility to keep the bypass buttons hidden in the mixer, and use the bypass buttons in the inspector.

    November 17, 2009 at 14:15 #16760
    Conquistador
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    Is it really that often that the average user will be bypassing individual effects? I often don’t use bypassing at all. Perhaps other users can post whether they think single-click bypass is essential?

    At the end of the day any comment made about a users expectations are not 100% set in stone as I don’t know how everyone works but having one button less to look at compared to having the one click functionality I once had in the mixer taken away…for me the choice is easy.

    It could well be that everyone else thinks it is a fantastic move to remove the button…(maybe even likely) but thats ok with me as it is 100% ok to not agree from time to time. 😉

    Leave it as it is if you think its a minor issue or is better for the mixers current look…I just personally think its a step backward. If most people want it left alone then if you do not want to…don’t change it.

    November 17, 2009 at 14:18 #16761
    kyran
    Participant

    I use bypass all the time:
    1. To see if the effect is actually improving the sound
    2. I’ll have 5 different fx on a track and bypass/enable sets of them to see what actually works well and what does not
    3. When I come back to a tune and I don’t remember what each sound actually does.

    I sometimes even automate those switches (I haven’t done that in podium yet though) because I’d like some fx only to present in certain parts of a tune.

    But my workflow might not be so widespread ofcourse

    November 17, 2009 at 14:32 #16762
    LiquidProj3ct
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    Some may think that this improves the overview, while others may think the lack of indentation of the track names disrupts the overview. Personally I think indentation works well in for example a file folder list, but I often find it confusing that the track header controls are shifted around according to group level position. What do people think?

    I prefer the actual way, but since I don’t use too much levels I don’t think it would be a major problem, at least for me, switch to the suggested mode.

    @Zynewave wrote:

    Perhaps other users can post whether they think single-click bypass is essential?

    While you can show the button with mixer options I don’t think it would be a major problem. Personally I’ll have them hide, since shift+click is more comfortable for me (I must add that I use this shortcut regulary). Although thinking in new Podium users maybe it’s more easy for them show the mute button in default setup.

    November 17, 2009 at 16:04 #16763
    Zynewave
    Keymaster

    @kyran wrote:

    I use bypass all the time:
    1. To see if the effect is actually improving the sound
    2. I’ll have 5 different fx on a track and bypass/enable sets of them to see what actually works well and what does not
    3. When I come back to a tune and I don’t remember what each sound actually does.

    I sometimes even automate those switches (I haven’t done that in podium yet though) because I’d like some fx only to present in certain parts of a tune.

    But my workflow might not be so widespread ofcourse

    Thanks for the workflow description.

    I had a quick look at some other host mixers: The Cubase mixer seems to use two lines for each effect; one for the name and a second line for assorted buttons, including a power button. The Logic Pro 9 mixer does not have bypass buttons, but uses option+click to toggle bypass. I don’t see any bypass buttons in the Reaper mixer strips either.

    I think having the “show bypass buttons” option satisfies most users. I wouldn’t call it a “step backward” just by having them hidden in the default setup 😉

    The reason I would like to have them hidden, is to provide more space for the effect name. A lot of plugins have long names which will be truncated in the narrow buttons on the mixer strips.

    November 17, 2009 at 16:42 #16764
    kyran
    Participant

    @Zynewave wrote:

    The reason I would like to have them hidden, is to provide more space for the effect name. A lot of plugins have long names which will be truncated in the narrow buttons on the mixer strips.

    Most hosts have very small fx slots (reaper and logic spring to mind), but you’re right, the more of the name we can read the better :).

    I don’t mind the ctrl+click shortcut. I just think that the ‘E’ button functionality can be put into the general fx slot (clicking the fx slot opens the editor) and that would make room for a bypass button. Maybe I’m also missing the point, and I should stop talking until I’ve had time to actually play with it in a beta 😉

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 256 total)
1 2 3 … 10 11 12 … 16 17 18
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© 2021 Zynewave