We have this discussion from time to time on this list, but since
there are new people joining all the time, it bears repeating:
User interface design is hard. HARD. It is a result of compromise
between conflicting goals. You can never please a random group of 10
people, much less everyone.
Since I do Paul's panel mockups, I get the privilege of injecting my
opinions about the interface of new modules sometimes. Usually that
consists of making sure that similar functions on different modules
are called the same thing whenever possible. In the specific case
mentioned with the 'V/R' switches on the MOTM-190, I agree - the
minimal labels are less than ideal. We went through 4 iterations,
seeking list feedback along the way, to get to the final design. I
think it's interesting to review how the process went:
Take one: switches were in the current position, and were
labelled 'VCA/RM' and 'LIN/EXP'. The top knob was labelled 'MODE',
with the left extremity labelled 'AM' and the right extremity
labelled 'RM'. This one didn't work because the labelling was just
too crowded around the left border between the switch and the pot
graphics.
Take two: switches were moved underneath the bottom pot. This looked
good on paper, but in reality the switches were too close to the
jacks to comfortably grab when a plug was present.
Take three: move the switches back, shorten the labels to 'V/R'
and 'L/E'. Label density was better, but the top knob's function
still was a bit cryptic.
Take four (final): top knob was relabelled 'BLEND', and the
extremities were relabelled 'IN' and 'RM'.
One problem with layout on this module is that Paul is cramming a
lot more functionality and features into 1U than ever before. Given
the tradeoff of space for labelling clarity, I like the choice he
made. I'd rather be able to fit twice as many VCAs in my scarce cab
space and learn what the switch labels do, than to go to 2U and have
better switch labels. Others may not like that decision but
eventually you have to make a choice and just go with something.
Here are some of the constraints one must consider when designing
for MOTM: some of these constraints are valid with other formats
also.
1. fixed height (naturally!)
2. jack field at the bottom
3. standard placement grid
4. can't always use all available panel space if pcb collides
5. most pots need to be on the far right column because that's where
the pcb is
6. cramming the features in the module space allotted
If you violate any of the above, it either becomes impractical to
build, or people complain because a module doesn't have the uniform
look that they expect (example - the pot spacing on the MOTM-450).
However, you HAVE to allow for some flexibility in design, because
sometimes some modules just don't lend themselves to a certain
format.
FWIW, the most useable format ever achieved IMHO is the E-MU (old
timer list members groan in unison: 'there he goes again!') I like
the E-MU scheme of audio inputs to the left, control inputs at the
bottom, and outputs to the right. But, it's a total space hog! I
find the MOTM format to be the best compromise between ergonomics
and functional density. The fact that at least 3 other manufacturers
build modules that comply with this format speaks for its
effectiveness and desirability.
Do I think the format could be enhanced? Sure! Here's a few things I
can think of:
1. Be flexible with the MOTM grid when necessary. The MOTM-450 is
the first 'official' module to do this, but many of my sequencer
designs also necessitate this. I'm not saying to break the grid for
trivial reasons, but if there is a complex module with a compelling
reason...
2. I like the idea of different knobs for different functions, when
it makes sense. Examples include chicken beak pointer knobs for
rotary switches (JLH-822), and small knobs (the very dense UEG). I'd
like to see some experimentation with mixed small and large knob
sizes in the same module - in a dense module, small knobs could be
used for less important adjustments, while the major functions have
full sized or even oversized knobs. Look at JH's JH-5 design, which
uses 4 knob sizes to great effect.
3. Module edge markings. Sigh. MOTM's Achille's heel. There's no use
lobbying Paul to change now - the visual scheme has been well
established. I swear that before I die, I'll figure out an elegant
way to add these after the fact - something better than hand taping!
In spite of these minor issues, I still think that it's a very easy
and intuitive interface to use.
Enough ranting from me for now.
Moe
http://www.hotrodmotm.com