Ahem...
Let it be said, in the land of MOTM, green is more important than either red
or blue. :)
But seriously (sort of), I agree with Adam that the features of a module
that are in use for a given patch are the most important at that time, so
it's difficult to say which features are more important than others. I also
agree that there's NO way you're going to get a consensus on
functions/interfaces/layouts, so why bother trying? I like the common theme
for MOTM. The painter's palette analogy is a good one.
Conversely, I think there is merit to having some differentiation between
the various controls in a module, be it knob size, shape or position, and
between modules as well. This aids in pattern recognition of functions, and
therefore, learning and ease of use. For example, a larger Fc knob on a
filter, or chicken beak knobs on Larry's excellent 822. <plug>
As far as crammed functions into small areas, well, one of the [many]
reasons I chose MOTM was it's "comfortable" utilitarian layout. There's
plenty of space. Black + White = Perfect. Alas, I think the 190 is the 1st
module to violate the comfort index. But I understand that Paul needs a 1U
VCA, and I appreciate the extra functions it sports - although I would
rather have it in 2U. I guess we'll get a 2U VCA when the ∗cough∗ 130
∗cough∗ comes to fruition. (∗cough∗)
Oh, and by the way, I think the more arcane functions, the better. Bring on
the 500 series! Please!
George - just full of opinions today
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Schabtach <adam@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: User Interface design - Moe's long semiannual rant
> > For example, if there are 5
> > interesting but arcane functions that are rarely used on a module
> > that crowd the one often used function, making it hard to find within
> > the grid of identical knobs, the module is compromised.
>
> But this implies that you have to get people to agree on which functions
are
> arcane and which aren't. It has been shown that it is difficult to form a
> consensus of opinion even when all of the functions have equal importance,
> e.g., the layout of the filter bank's knobs. I submit that it would be
even
> more difficult to get people to agree on which functions in a given module
> are more important than others. If I consider my own (relatively brief)
use
> of my MOTM system, it is not clear to me that I would consider any of the
> functions on some of the more knob-laden modules--say the 300 or the
> filters--to be subordinate in importance to others. It all depends on how
> I'm using the module on a given occasion. Maybe one day I'm not using the
FM
> inputs at all; maybe the next day the adjustment of the FM levels is
> critical to the operation of the patch.
>
> With a modular synthesizer, to make decisions about which function is more
> important than another means to predetermine in the mind of the user which
> functions are more important than others. It is my opinion--and yes, it's
> just an opinion--that this design philosophy would be flawed. A modular
> synthesizer is like a blank canvas and a set of paints. To tell the user
> that one function is more important than another would be like telling the
> painter that red is more important than blue.
>
> --Adam