MOTM

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