Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

I apologize if this going over old ground, and I understand I may be
invoking the wrath of the devoted, but in my humble opinion, the
rigid grid MOTM panel design is a considerable drawback to the
system. My opinion is that the Moog design approach (or to differing
degrees the design of Arp 2500, Cirocco modulars, or Polyfusion
systems) is superior in that anyone familiar with the modules can
identify functions easily from a distance, a goal of good human
interface design. To my eye, for example, no two Moog modules look
alike, whereas (nearly) all the MOTM modules do. Look at the
dashboards of well-designed cars and you will see differently shaped
and sized buttons whose functions relate to their appearance and can
be identified from a distance by a driver whose attention is (mostly)
elsewhere. Those dashboards with rows of identical buttons are
criticized in the automotive press.

To put this in context, I use a medium-sized modular Moog augmented
with a smattering of modules from MOTM, Synth.com and Blacet. I've
also designed a few panels of my own over the last 20 years.
Recently, faced with the choice of purchasing Mixer, Noise and Sample
& Hold modules, I chose the Synth.com modules over the MOTM modules,
simply from an ergonomic standpoint, and despite the superior
specifications of the MOTM offerings. I truly do like the MOTM
modules I currently have, and will purchase more, but there is room
for improvement in the interface design.

In any case, please consider the advantages of "varying the grid",
allowing for different knob types, and functional layout choices when
considering new panel designs. And thank you in advance for being
open minded enough to consider other points of view.