Forums > MaxMSP

Presentation (skin over the patch)

January 26, 2007 | 11:26 pm

I have my patch ready, now i would like to make the appearance goodlooking. How can i put a background color and make the clickable items in the patch look like normal buttons, so you don’t see anymore that it’s made in maxmsp
Thanks in advence
Samuel


January 26, 2007 | 11:46 pm

http://tinyurl.com/267fuk

RTFM

There is a whole chapter in the Max tutorials called "Tutorial45: Designing the User Interface". That will be a good start…it also has a series of "See Also"s at the end of the chapter that will be a good middle. :)

Quote: Thinksamuel wrote on Fri, 26 January 2007 15:26
—————————————————-
> I have my patch ready, now i would like to make the appearance goodlooking. How can i put a background color and make the clickable items in the patch look like normal buttons, so you don’t see anymore that it’s made in maxmsp
> Thanks in advence
> Samuel
—————————————————-


January 27, 2007 | 12:13 am

Yeah seriously RTFM. If you want good examples check out Lewis work at http://www.glewlio.com, he makes pretty good interfaces, stuff looks great. Ill also post a few of mine later tonight.. http://www.axiom-crux.net

Takes a long time to make pretty interfaces but its worth it cause you feel more connection to your patch. I dont really like the look of applets that you can tell are made in max/msp.. I feel unjustified buying them cause I feel like I could make them.

Also check out grid pro. Amaaaaazing jitter applet that looks nothing like a max patch.


January 27, 2007 | 4:21 am

Quote: Axiom-Crux wrote on Fri, 26 January 2007 17:13
—————————————————-
> Yeah seriously RTFM. If you want good examples check out
> Lewis work at http://www.glewlio.com

haha great, funny pictures, i like how he arranges stuff!

somehow a counterpart to my patches style, he makes me
feel like a technican.


January 27, 2007 | 4:42 am

Heres a screenshot of something I am working on now. It still has a ways to go. http://thelifenomadic.com/pics/screenshot_3.png


January 27, 2007 | 6:23 am

here’s a shot of my latest pluggo:

http://homepage.mac.com/andrew_burgess/Pic1.png


January 27, 2007 | 9:24 am

At 10:23 PM -0800 1/26/07, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>here’s a shot of my latest pluggo:
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/andrew_burgess/Pic1.png

Beautiful.

-C


Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." – Brian Eno



f.e
January 27, 2007 | 10:08 am

A way to make Max look good, imho, using only built-in objects :

http://francois.eudes.free.fr/news.htm

I, personally, have quit using fancy UI objects because they’ll never
look as good as you hope, and building pretty things with only what Max
guives you is an exciting challenge each time. And it keeps portability
easier, from your computer to another of your computers; but not from
one OS to another because, as you may read a lot on the forum (and
especially the latest thread about it), fonts are not displayed the same
way on mac or pc.

f.e

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

Chris Muir wrote:
> At 10:23 PM -0800 1/26/07, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>
>> here’s a shot of my latest pluggo:
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/andrew_burgess/Pic1.png
>>
>
> Beautiful.
>
> -C
>
>


January 27, 2007 | 10:15 am

Hi,

And "Open Tuning", the first ever made software with MaxMSP selected by Apple as Featured Download on their audio download pages during two months in 2005.
Plus a 3 months ad in their ‘Macintosh Products Guide’, and lot of awards I got from a such focus on this shareware.

The Safari webarchive:
< http://www.open-tuning.com/picts/Apple-Featured Download-Open_Tuning.webarchive>

Hope that’s still an encouragement for your projects!

Kindest regards,
Philippe
http://www.open-tuning.com


January 27, 2007 | 11:48 am

Op 27-jan-2007, om 11:08 heeft f.e het volgende geschreven:

> I, personally, have quit using fancy UI objects because they’ll
> never look as good as you hope, and building pretty things with
> only what Max guives you is an exciting challenge each time.

It literally took me months to ‘port’ a simplified GUI made in Flash
to Max. Horrible experience. Max is not made for pretty GUI’s. You
can do it, but it’s really hard. Neatly arranged GUI stuff will shift
when opening and closing the Max editor, the fullscreen command has
its quirks etc.

In fact, I’m looking for an environment I can do GUI’s in, and use
OSC to communicate to a plain and ugly max patch that does the real
work. Preferably on the same computer. Running Flash and Max on the
same computer is too unreliable, unfortunately.

Best,

Zip



f.e
January 27, 2007 | 12:01 pm

A Max patch is no ugly thing. It’s one of the prettiest things on a
computer.

f.e

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

Zip Boterbloem wrote:
>
> Op 27-jan-2007, om 11:08 heeft f.e het volgende geschreven:
>
>> I, personally, have quit using fancy UI objects because they’ll never
>> look as good as you hope, and building pretty things with only what
>> Max guives you is an exciting challenge each time.
>>
>
> It literally took me months to ‘port’ a simplified GUI made in Flash
> to Max. Horrible experience. Max is not made for pretty GUI’s. You can
> do it, but it’s really hard. Neatly arranged GUI stuff will shift when
> opening and closing the Max editor, the fullscreen command has its
> quirks etc.
>
> In fact, I’m looking for an environment I can do GUI’s in, and use OSC
> to communicate to a plain and ugly max patch that does the real work.
> Preferably on the same computer. Running Flash and Max on the same
> computer is too unreliable, unfortunately.
>
> Best,
>
> Zip
> ————————————————————————
>
>



f.e
January 27, 2007 | 12:06 pm

Ok, there’s an exception for Roman’s patches .-)

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
> >>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
> >>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

Zip Boterbloem wrote:
>
> Op 27-jan-2007, om 11:08 heeft f.e het volgende geschreven:
>
>> I, personally, have quit using fancy UI objects because they’ll never
>> look as good as you hope, and building pretty things with only what
>> Max guives you is an exciting challenge each time.
>>
>
> It literally took me months to ‘port’ a simplified GUI made in Flash
> to Max. Horrible experience. Max is not made for pretty GUI’s. You can
> do it, but it’s really hard. Neatly arranged GUI stuff will shift when
> opening and closing the Max editor, the fullscreen command has its
> quirks etc.
>
> In fact, I’m looking for an environment I can do GUI’s in, and use OSC
> to communicate to a plain and ugly max patch that does the real work.
> Preferably on the same computer. Running Flash and Max on the same
> computer is too unreliable, unfortunately.
>
> Best,
>
> Zip
> ————————————————————————
>
>


January 27, 2007 | 12:29 pm

>I, personally, have quit using fancy UI objects because they’ll
>never look as good as you hope, and building pretty things with only
>what Max guives you is an exciting challenge each time.

Beautiful examples everyone has shown so far, nice work!

Here’s a pluggo I’m about to release in a day or two – Major
Malfunction. It’s a glitcher/mangler/FSU plugin, which I am gearing
towards Ableton Live use. I too have avoided almost all 3rd party UI
objects; this is (with two or three small non-UI exceptions) pure
native Max/MSP objects:

http://www.defectiverecords.com/images/mm_full_shadow.jpg

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com


January 27, 2007 | 1:18 pm

i guess ideally you want the beauty of a patch to come from its functionality. i’ve worked a while on this interface, which may still be buggy, but its getting nearer what i need


January 27, 2007 | 1:50 pm

On 27 Jan 2007, at 12:29, Dan Nigrin wrote:

> Beautiful examples everyone has shown so far, nice work!

Here’s a couple of mine:

http://www.cassiel.com/misc-images/fullmapper.jpeg

http://www.cassiel.com/misc-images/dancergui.jpeg

The former is obviously a Max patcher, although with a number of
embedded custom JSUI’s doing text skinning. The latter is all JSUI,
and obviously a very specialised interface…

– N.


January 27, 2007 | 1:53 pm

On 27 Jan 2007, at 11:48, Zip Boterbloem wrote:

> Max is not made for pretty GUI’s. You can do it, but it’s really hard.

It would be interesting to attempt a complete user interface using
JSUI, although of course it would need a widget toolkit to make the
task anything other than masochistic. I’ve done lots of JSUI
development, but only for components within Patcher windows, and
hence not requiring heirarchical structure, or very complex interaction.

– N.



January 27, 2007 | 2:53 pm

Quote: Zip Boterbloem wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 12:48
—————————————————-
>
> In fact, I’m looking for an environment I can do GUI’s in, and use
> OSC to communicate to a plain and ugly max patch that does the real
> work. Preferably on the same computer. Running Flash and Max on the
> same computer is too unreliable, unfortunately.
>

What do you mean by unreliable? It crashes a lot? To me a flash interface that controls max with OSC sounds pretty perfect..

Mattijs


January 27, 2007 | 3:33 pm


January 27, 2007 | 3:44 pm

Yes. At least unreliable when you run them(Max patch& Flash app)
together on a dual G5. The combination will just stop working and/or
crash at some point. Both the Max and Flash programs worked fine when
run alone. Total CPU shouldn’t have taxed the G5 at all. We tried
very hard to figure out what was wrong, but the problem was very
elusive, money ran out and I was forced to redo everything in Max,
more or less keeping the client approved ‘skin’ made in Flash.
We probably should have used 2 computers, but there was budget nor
space for such a solution at that time.

Best,

Zip

Zip Boterbloem
Media Mechanics
Zwaluwstraat 54
2025 VR Haarlem
The Netherlands
+31627014758
zip@knoware.nl

Op 27-jan-2007, om 15:53 heeft Mattijs Kneppers het volgende geschreven:

>
> Quote: Zip Boterbloem wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 12:48
> —————————————————-
>>
>> In fact, I’m looking for an environment I can do GUI’s in, and use
>> OSC to communicate to a plain and ugly max patch that does the real
>> work. Preferably on the same computer. Running Flash and Max on the
>> same computer is too unreliable, unfortunately.
>>
>
> What do you mean by unreliable? It crashes a lot? To me a flash
> interface that controls max with OSC sounds pretty perfect..
>
> Mattijs
> –
> SmadSteck – http://www.smadsteck.nl
> Interactive audiovisual sampling soft- and hardware
>


January 27, 2007 | 4:23 pm

Quote: Zip Boterbloem wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 16:44
—————————————————-
> Yes. At least unreliable when you run them(Max patch& Flash app)
> together on a dual G5. The combination will just stop working and/or
> crash at some point. Both the Max and Flash programs worked fine when
> run alone. Total CPU shouldn’t have taxed the G5 at all. We tried
> very hard to figure out what was wrong, but the problem was very
> elusive, money ran out and I was forced to redo everything in Max,
> more or less keeping the client approved ‘skin’ made in Flash.
> We probably should have used 2 computers, but there was budget nor
> space for such a solution at that time.
>
> Best,
>
> Zip
>
>

Hm that sounds pretty nasty. I can’t imagine what could be wrong. Maybe I’ll try today or tomorrow, see if I can reproduce this..

Seeing that (in my opinion) Max is still not a full-fledged development environment, it’s interesting to hear of someone else that works with max on a commercial basis, where money, time and customors demands are real restrictions. I don’t think much people have such a ‘serious’ approach where a few max hiccups can simply cause a project to actually fail, resulting in loss of money and customers.

Groet,
Mattijs

> Zip Boterbloem
> Media Mechanics
> Zwaluwstraat 54
> 2025 VR Haarlem
> The Netherlands
> +31627014758
> zip@knoware.nl
>
>
>
> Op 27-jan-2007, om 15:53 heeft Mattijs Kneppers het volgende geschreven:
>
> >
> > Quote: Zip Boterbloem wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 12:48
> > —————————————————-
> >>
> >> In fact, I’m looking for an environment I can do GUI’s in, and use
> >> OSC to communicate to a plain and ugly max patch that does the real
> >> work. Preferably on the same computer. Running Flash and Max on the
> >> same computer is too unreliable, unfortunately.
> >>
> >
> > What do you mean by unreliable? It crashes a lot? To me a flash
> > interface that controls max with OSC sounds pretty perfect..
> >
> > Mattijs
> > –
> > SmadSteck – http://www.smadsteck.nl
> > Interactive audiovisual sampling soft- and hardware
> >
>
>
—————————————————-


January 27, 2007 | 4:35 pm

Thanks Chris!

to get around the fonts/platform issues, I make the background in photoshop, then when I’m sure of the layout, I add the text labels as part of the image… no font issues then


January 27, 2007 | 5:33 pm


January 27, 2007 | 5:38 pm

A couple of mine, made using the bog-standard ui objects available in Max:

http://wildfrontear.co.uk/screenshots/VSTShell.jpg
http://wildfrontear.co.uk/screenshots/S16.jpg
http://wildfrontear.co.uk/screenshots/D16.jpg
Cheers
Roger


January 27, 2007 | 6:41 pm

How about this one:

http://www.arttech.nl/mpc2000.png

The patch is here btw:

http://www.cycling74.com/twiki/bin/view/Share/MattijsKneppers

Cheers,
Mattjs



January 27, 2007 | 7:31 pm


January 27, 2007 | 7:52 pm



jln
January 27, 2007 | 8:13 pm


January 27, 2007 | 8:14 pm

> Hey Rui, I like you interface. I have never heard of the "Processing
> interface".
> Do you have any links to more information?

Actually it’s a very simple, yet somewhat powerful, programming language based in Java, specially geared towards animation, design of web applets and such.

You can find all about it in:

http://www.processing.org

it open source, very well documented, extremely easy to learn and compiles easily for web, macosx, linux and windows, so I think it’s worth a shot!

Best regards,

Rui


January 27, 2007 | 8:21 pm

Thanks for the info. I guess that leads me to the question
What benefit does one have in designing a UI using Processing
versus doing it with Jitter. Obviously if you do not have Jitter
then Processing makes sense. But as far as functionality goes
is one better than the other?

Anthony

—– Original Message —–
From: "Rui Penha"
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: [maxmsp] Re: Re: Re: Presentation (skin over the patch)

>
> > Hey Rui, I like you interface. I have never heard of the "Processing
> > interface".
> > Do you have any links to more information?
>
> Actually it’s a very simple, yet somewhat powerful, programming language
based in Java, specially geared towards animation, design of web applets and
such.
>
> You can find all about it in:
>
> http://www.processing.org
>
> it open source, very well documented, extremely easy to learn and compiles
easily for web, macosx, linux and windows, so I think it’s worth a shot!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui


January 27, 2007 | 10:40 pm

http://www.axiom-crux.net/software/Wave_weaver_0_9b.jpg
http://www.axiom-crux.net/software/klystron_05b.jpg
http://www.axiom-crux.net/software/R03_june05.jpg

http://www.axiom-crux.net/software/RO3Sep06.jpg

or go to my website and check out the software page ;)

http://www.axiom-crux.net/

I love making GUIs lately. the waveweaver is my new baby. I plan to release it commercially very soon, along with spectral, drum machine, and jitter versions so that users can create very synchronized audio and visual.

Lots of good stuff people, Im looking at your guis and there are some really cool things I wish I could play with. I love that QRAQ, thing is amazing!!

Keep up the good work!


January 27, 2007 | 11:09 pm

Having buttons that look like glass is cool, or a consistent color
scheme, is cool, but also important as having a well thought out and
intuitive interface.

I highly recommend "The Human Interface" by Jef Raskin as a book on
interface design concerns.

http://www.amazon.com/Humane-Interface-Directions-Designing-Interactive/dp/0201379376/sr=8-1/qid=1169939245/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4313375-9564921?ie=UTF8&s=books

b


barry threw
composition : sound : programming
http://www.barrythrew.com
bthrew(at)gmail(dot)com
857-544-3967

(if you would see the stars clearly,
look hard at the surrounding darkness)
-Ooka Makoto


January 28, 2007 | 12:00 am

Im not sure if thats aimed at me, but Id say my interface is extremely intuitive. You draw, and click buttons which have graphics that show exactly what they do. Ive shown it to a few friends and they all love it, commenting particularly that its very intuitive.

As far as the glass buttons, I love them, always have loved the look of OSX. I just want to make it look as far from a max patch as possible, not that these screenshots are the finished product.

I actually took a year of interface design at college for creative studies when I was in the web design track, before switching into animation.

For others I would highly recommend studying this if you plan to market your software, but if its for yourself, just do whatever comes naturally. Ive seen patches that I have no idea how to use, but the friend who made them can make amazing stuff with them.


January 28, 2007 | 12:18 am

No, not aimed at you. Just a note in general.

b

Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
> Im not sure if thats aimed at me, but Id say my interface is extremely intuitive. You draw, and click buttons which have graphics that show exactly what they do. Ive shown it to a few friends and they all love it, commenting particularly that its very intuitive.
>
> As far as the glass buttons, I love them, always have loved the look of OSX. I just want to make it look as far from a max patch as possible, not that these screenshots are the finished product.
>
> I actually took a year of interface design at college for creative studies when I was in the web design track, before switching into animation.
>
> For others I would highly recommend studying this if you plan to market your software, but if its for yourself, just do whatever comes naturally. Ive seen patches that I have no idea how to use, but the friend who made them can make amazing stuff with them.
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
>


barry threw
composition : sound : programming
http://www.barrythrew.com
bthrew(at)gmail(dot)com
857-544-3967

(if you would see the stars clearly,
look hard at the surrounding darkness)
-Ooka Makoto


January 28, 2007 | 12:46 am

Spacestation 2, pluggo doppler effect:

http://www.oli.adbe.org/nonWS/spacestation2.png

oli


January 28, 2007 | 4:47 am

On Jan 27, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
> I love making GUIs lately. the waveweaver is my new baby. I plan
> to release it commercially very soon, along with spectral, drum
> machine, and jitter versions so that users can create very
> synchronized audio and visual.
>
> Lots of good stuff people, Im looking at your guis and there are
> some really cool things I wish I could play with. I love that
> QRAQ, thing is amazing!!
>
> Keep up the good work!

This thread is excellent! I love checking out all the different
visual styles and aesthetic decisions. So much beautiful work…

I released a suite of Pluggos recently, all sharing the same dark but
clean interface style, made with only standard Max objects:

http://www.daevlmakr.com/Pages/daevlplugs.html (each plug-in
description has a link to a full interface shot)

Here’s a small app I made for the Monome 40h, Balron, with a
different look:

http://wiki.monome.org/view/AppMaxMspBalron_40h

Keep ‘em coming!

Vlad

Vlad Spears
Urbi et orbi

http://www.daevlmakr.com

http://www.2secondfuse.com


January 29, 2007 | 1:14 pm

bin ray wrote:
> i guess ideally you want the beauty of a patch to come from its
> functionality. i’ve worked a while on this interface, which may still
> be buggy, but its getting nearer what i need

Could you repost it as text? As the attachment has no suffix I guess
you’re on a mac as I am as well, but it WILL BE SCREWED from either the
provider or the mail program… It just doesn’t work that way…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com


January 29, 2007 | 3:41 pm

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Vlad Spears wrote:

> This thread is excellent! I love checking out all the different visual
> styles and aesthetic decisions. So much beautiful work…

Not really pluggo "skins" or anything, and these are a little old, but I
get a kick out of messing around with the standalone interface:

http://music.columbia.edu/~brad/mnissa/

http://music.columbia.edu/~brad/mlooch/

slightly newer:

http://music.columbia.edu/~brad/doug-maja-toast/

(done for Doug Geers and Maja Cerar)

Unfortunately all for OSX, non-UB. Patches are there, though.

brad

http://music.columbia.edu/~brad


January 29, 2007 | 4:12 pm

Good work Vlad, Ill check those out later. So did you have to pay the 1k PC app fee? was it worth it? Did you make your money back???


January 29, 2007 | 4:23 pm

Quote: Axiom-Crux wrote on Sat, 27 January 2007 17:00
—————————————————-
> Im not sure if thats aimed at me, but Id say my interface is extremely intuitive.

The complicated bit about language like "intuitive"
is that one actually has to develop the habit of
thinking like someone *else." Everything I do is
intuitive, and all my friends think so, too.

:-)


January 29, 2007 | 4:49 pm

I got no response to this…

I guess that leads me to the question,
what benefit does one have in designing a UI using Processing
versus doing it with Jitter. Obviously if you do not have Jitter
then Processing makes sense. But as far as functionality goes
is one better than the other?

Anthony


January 29, 2007 | 4:50 pm

I got no response to this…

I guess that leads me to the question
what benefit does one have in designing a UI using Processing
versus doing it with Jitter. Obviously if you do not have Jitter
then Processing makes sense. But as far as functionality goes
is one better than the other?

Anthony


January 29, 2007 | 5:21 pm

Gregory, thats really unnecessary. And intuitive means something thats innate, not learned or developed, look it up.

seriously, my application is very intuitive. How hard is it to draw a graph line and dial in a tempo. Even my grandma could create insane sound design, and thats always been my goal in designing a piece of software, accessibility.

On the other hand when I make my patches that are meant for only myself to use, I make them very obscure, I don’t label anything and I work in ways that work best for me, and more then likely not for others.


January 29, 2007 | 5:23 pm

Quote: Anthony Palomba wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 16:50
—————————————————-
> I got no response to this…

I’m sorry… it has been a popular thread, it’s easy to miss some posts!

> I guess that leads me to the question
> what benefit does one have in designing a UI using Processing
> versus doing it with Jitter. Obviously if you do not have Jitter
> then Processing makes sense. But as far as functionality goes
> is one better than the other?

I don’t have Jitter (yet), so you have a good point! Having used Jitter only during my 9-month student license, I find Processing and Jitter completely different approaches, albeit sometimes capable of similar results. Jitter is totally embedded within Max which, for me, is at the same time an advantage (integration) and a disadvantage (doesn’t allow you to combine the best of different worlds).

Processing is a regular code programming language, which, imo, has several advantages (as well as disadvantages, of course) over a graphical programming language. Using both has allowed me to use the best of both worlds. Although Jitter seems to be very efficient, I have the impression that Processing, especially if you’re using OpenGL, is a bit more so. Having the interface disconnected from the engine has also been an advantage, as I made some redundant parts and the work can survive even if one of them crashes. For one of the softwares ("Digital Jam"), the capability of having the server (MaxMSP) in MacOs X and the interfaces for each improviser running in any combination of Mac, Windows and Linux machines was very appealing to me as well, so I’m not limited to the computers I have available: people can bring their one computers, run a 250Kb app and they’re instantly part of the game!

The short answer: I don’t think Processing and Jitter can be compared, although sometimes they’re used with similar purposes.

Best regards,

Rui


January 29, 2007 | 5:26 pm

well, http://lowfrequency.org/lfo.jsui.html was an attempt at that.
believe it or not, i’ve written some complex guis using it as a
guide. you can make image-based buttons with rollovers, 3d buttons,
etc.

i swear that one day i will make more documentation and examples for it.
someday.

-ev

On Jan 27, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Nick Rothwell wrote:

>
> On 27 Jan 2007, at 11:48, Zip Boterbloem wrote:
>
>> Max is not made for pretty GUI’s. You can do it, but it’s really
>> hard.
>
> It would be interesting to attempt a complete user interface using
> JSUI, although of course it would need a widget toolkit to make the
> task anything other than masochistic. I’ve done lots of JSUI
> development, but only for components within Patcher windows, and
> hence not requiring heirarchical structure, or very complex
> interaction.
>
> – N.
>


January 29, 2007 | 5:40 pm

Quote: ruipenha wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 09:23
—————————————————-
> Quote: Anthony Palomba wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 16:50
> —————————————————-
> > I got no response to this…
>
> I’m sorry… it has been a popular thread, it’s easy to miss some posts!
>
> > I guess that leads me to the question
> > what benefit does one have in designing a UI using Processing
> > versus doing it with Jitter. Obviously if you do not have Jitter
> > then Processing makes sense. But as far as functionality goes
> > is one better than the other?
>
> I don’t have Jitter (yet), so you have a good point! Having used Jitter only during my 9-month student license, I find Processing and Jitter completely different approaches, albeit sometimes capable of similar results. Jitter is totally embedded within Max which, for me, is at the same time an advantage (integration) and a disadvantage (doesn’t allow you to combine the best of different worlds).
>
> Processing is a regular code programming language, which, imo, has several advantages (as well as disadvantages, of course) over a graphical programming language. Using both has allowed me to use the best of both worlds. Although Jitter seems to be very efficient, I have the impression that Processing, especially if you’re using OpenGL, is a bit more so. Having the interface disconnected from the engine has also been an advantage, as I made some redundant parts and the work can survive even if one of them crashes. For one of the softwares ("Digital Jam"), the capability of having the server (MaxMSP) in MacOs X and the interfaces for each improviser running in any combination of Mac, Windows and Linux machines was very appealing to me as well, so I’m not limited to the computers I have available: people can bring their one computers, run a 250Kb app and they’re instantly part of the game!
>
> The short answer: I don’t think Processing and Jitter can be compared, although sometimes they’re used with similar purposes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
—————————————————-

Rui, would it be possible to see some simple example of code you’ve written ifor connecting to max via OSC I’m interested in this, but the processing.org site doesn’t seem to have info on max interoperability


January 29, 2007 | 6:04 pm

On Jan 29, 2007, at 8:12 AM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

> Good work Vlad, Ill check those out later. So did you have to pay
> the 1k PC app fee? was it worth it? Did you make your money back???

Hi Nicholas,

Thanks for the props!

The XP version is out tomorrow, so I don’t yet know what Windows
sales will be like. The OSX suite has been doing quite well. The
licensing fee doesn’t apply to plug-ins. Below, I’ve pasted Andrew
Pask’s licensing clarification from back in the Zsolt days.

Vlad

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Andrew Pask
> Date: September 9, 2005 9:50:56 AM PDT
> To: max-msp@cycling74.com
> Subject: Re: [max-msp] Can we Sell programs that we create in Max???
> Reply-To: max-msp@cycling74.com
>
>
> Yes – you may, but there are some conditions.
>
> Firstly, it is perfectly possible to create standalone applications
> with
> MaxMSP on Windows. That FAQ page is out of date.
>
> On Macintosh, you may sell your application, collective, patch or
> plugin
> and pay no licensing fee.
>
> On Windows, there is a $1000US fee per application you wish to sell.
>
> The reason for this fee is related to the software libraries we
> used to
> port MaxMSP to Windows. We used a third party commercial library to
> bring MaxMSP to Windows. Our licence agreement with this third
> party, to
> whom we pay ongoing fees, also includes that any software which is
> created on Windows using their libraries ( by extension) is also
> liable
> for a licensing fee.
>
> If you wish to sell Windows apps, the fee is per application. This
> means
> that if you have 5 distinct products, you need to pay 5 seperate fees.
>
> Please note that any application which is not bundled with the MaxMSP
> runtime is not liable for a fee. So if you create a Pluggo plugin, you
> may sell it without paying the license fee.The same applies to
> applications made with MaxMSP. You may sell the collective or
> patch,and
> if you require your users to download the MaxMSP runtime, you need not
> pay the licensing fee. It is only in the cases where you wish to
> sell a
> standalone application that the fee and agreement with us are
> required.
>
> You may give away Windows standalones for free without paying a fee.
>
> Hopefully this covers it. The mailing list archive is littered with
> various snippets about all this, most of them badly written by me.
>
> If you have any more questions – give me a yell.
>
> -A

Vlad Spears
Urbi et orbi

http://www.daevlmakr.com

http://www.2secondfuse.com


January 29, 2007 | 6:18 pm

Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.speakolascope.com/images.htm

All the best,
Stuart


January 29, 2007 | 6:19 pm

Quote: Andrew Burgess wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 17:40
—————————————————-
> Rui, would it be possible to see some simple example of code you’ve written ifor connecting to max via OSC I’m interested in this, but the processing.org site doesn’t seem to have info on max interoperability
—————————————————-

You have to use the oscP5 library:

http://www.sojamo.de/iv/index.php?n=11

An example of a complete program that only sends one osc message (/lib $1) when it receives a /load 1 OSC msg from Max:

// Import Libraries

import processing.opengl.*;
import oscP5.*;
import netP5.*;

// Declare OSC variables

OscP5 oscP5;
NetAddress myRemoteLocation;
OscMessage myMessage;

void setup()
{
// Interface …
size(50, 50, OPENGL);
frameRate(30);

// Atribute values to OSC variables
oscP5 = new OscP5(this,7005);
myRemoteLocation = new NetAddress("127.0.0.1",7000);

// Define incoming messages to expect
oscP5.plug(this, "load", "/load");
}

void draw()
{

}

public void load(int l)
{
int exmpl = 20;
if(l==1)
{
myMessage = new OscMessage("/lib");
myMessage.add(exmpl);
oscP5.send(myMessage, myRemoteLocation);
}
}

———- \ ————

And on the Max side (uses CNMAT’s OSC objects – can be made without them, though)

max v2;
#N vpatcher 509 198 852 424;
#P window setfont "Sans Serif" 9.;
#P window linecount 1;
#P comment 233 193 64 196617 the result…;
#P toggle 9 29 15 0;
#P message 26 71 49 196617 /load $1;
#P newex 9 49 27 196617 t b i;
#P newex 171 102 55 196617 print send;
#P newex 251 173 69 196617 print receive;
#P button 232 173 15 0;
#P newex 232 150 38 196617 sel 20;
#P newex 232 128 74 196617 osc-route /lib;
#P newex 78 102 90 196617 OpenSoundControl;
#P newex 78 128 151 196617 udpsend localhost 7005 CNMAT;
#P newex 78 71 122 196617 udpreceive 7000 CNMAT;
#P comment 26 29 57 196617 click here!;
#P connect 11 0 9 0;
#P connect 9 1 10 0;
#P fasten 10 0 3 0 31 95 83 95;
#P fasten 9 0 3 0 14 98 83 98;
#P connect 1 0 3 0;
#P connect 3 0 2 0;
#P fasten 10 0 8 0 31 92 176 92;
#P fasten 3 1 4 0 123 123 237 123;
#P connect 4 0 5 0;
#P connect 5 0 6 0;
#P fasten 5 0 7 0 237 170 256 170;
#P pop;

———- \ ————

You could also use MaxLink to connect P5 to MaxMSP

http://jklabs.net/maxlink/

But I’ve found that oscP5, although a little more complicated, is much more flexible.

Best regards,

Rui



bdc
January 29, 2007 | 7:11 pm

"Intuitive" may have a dictionary definition that means innate, but for humans to ‘intuit’ something three things are required: knowledge, experience and context. I’ve always been annoyed by the overuse of this word in the world of ui design, so I did some research into how people intuit things. Without knowledge, experience and context your grandma might be able to create insane sound design, but she really won’t have ‘intuited’ what she is doing. Most people really mean ‘easily learned’ when they say something is intuitive.

Cheers

Brad

—– Original Message —–
From: "Nicholas C. Raftis III"
Date: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:21 am
Subject: [maxmsp] Re: Presentation (skin over the patch)

>
> Gregory, thats really unnecessary. And intuitive means something
> thats innate, not learned or developed, look it up.
>
> seriously, my application is very intuitive. How hard is it to
> draw a graph line and dial in a tempo. Even my grandma could
> create insane sound design, and thats always been my goal in
> designing a piece of software, accessibility.
>
> On the other hand when I make my patches that are meant for only
> myself to use, I make them very obscure, I don’t label anything
> and I work in ways that work best for me, and more then likely not
> for others.
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
>


January 29, 2007 | 7:21 pm

intuitive by the definition I just read essentially means "easily learned". Lets not split hairs.


January 29, 2007 | 7:24 pm

heres the interface i’m working with as a text file

not sure if that helps, its still got a question mark….


January 29, 2007 | 7:45 pm

Intuition

3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.
a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object.
b. any object or truth so discerned.
c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge.

maybe its not 100% accurate but still sounds cooler the "easily learned" and means pretty close to what Im using it for. I really don’t understand the point of arguing about lingual semantics though.. this is a list about helping people work in max/msp/jitter.



bdc
January 29, 2007 | 8:08 pm

Its a pet peeve of mine. I work with project managers who proclaim ‘it has to be intuitive’ without specifying who the target audience is. These project managers are not the target audience, yet they expect the applications in question to be intuitive to them and then wonder why the real users complain about usability. And when the developers start saying "Well, I thought this would be intuitive" things go from bad to worse…

—– Original Message —–
From: "Nicholas C. Raftis III" javascript:parent.send(‘smtp’)
Send Message
Send
Date: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:45 pm
Subject: [maxmsp] Re: Presentation (skin over the patch)

>
> Intuition
>
> 3. a keen and quick insight.
> 4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or
> quick insight.
> a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined
> by a previous cognition of the same object.
> b. any object or truth so discerned.
> c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge.
>
>
> maybe its not 100% accurate but still sounds cooler the "easily
> learned" and means pretty close to what Im using it for. I really
> don’t understand the point of arguing about lingual semantics
> though.. this is a list about helping people work in max/msp/jitter.
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
>


January 29, 2007 | 8:50 pm

> Gregory, thats really unnecessary. And intuitive means something > thats innate, not learned or developed, look it up.

Some attempts at humor are not intuitively obvious,
evidently. Please feel free to assume that your habits
involve the innate, and good luck to you.

Since I always treasure my lexicographical times,
I shall think of you when next I do so.


January 29, 2007 | 8:56 pm

> I work with project managers who proclaim ‘it has to be intuitive’ without specifying who the target audience is. These project managers are not the target audience, yet they expect the applications in question to be intuitive to them and then wonder why the real users complain about usability.

Your managers’ ideas are intuitively obvious,
so why don’t you [and those other users who
aren't your managers' friends] get it?

You must be dense. Or from Myanmar [which is
not nearly as intuitively obvious a name for
that country as "Burma."]

:-) :-) :-) :-)


January 29, 2007 | 9:02 pm

On 29 Jan 2007, at 19:45, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

> . I really don’t understand the point of arguing about lingual
> semantics though.. this is a list about helping people work in max/
> msp/jitter.

Every so often we spiral off into some kind of an archane (or even
enlightening) discussion here. It alleviates the pressure of all that
technical thinking. Though it’s still very mild to the way things
were back in the day (n n n n n n n n nineteen/ i mean netochka).

David



bdc
January 29, 2007 | 9:07 pm

I should note that the comment about developers below does not apply to the C74 devs. I believe that in most cases the C74 devs are also users of the application and have pretty darn good ideas about what will be easy to learn and use.

Sorry if I inadvertently insulted anyone! I’ll stop now….

—– Original Message —–
From: Brad Cariou
Date: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Re: Presentation (skin over the patch)

> Its a pet peeve of mine. I work with project managers who proclaim
> ‘it has to be intuitive’ without specifying who the target
> audience is. These project managers are not the target audience,
> yet they expect the applications in question to be intuitive to
> them and then wonder why the real users complain about usability.
> And when the developers start saying "Well, I thought this would
> be intuitive" things go from bad to worse…
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Nicholas C. Raftis III"
> javascript:parent.send(‘smtp’)Send Message
> Send
> Date: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:45 pm
> Subject: [maxmsp] Re: Presentation (skin over the patch)
>
> >
> > Intuition
> >
> > 3. a keen and quick insight.
> > 4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or
> > quick insight.
> > a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or
> determined
> > by a previous cognition of the same object.
> > b. any object or truth so discerned.
> > c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge.
> >
> >
> > maybe its not 100% accurate but still sounds cooler the "easily
> > learned" and means pretty close to what Im using it for. I
> really
> > don’t understand the point of arguing about lingual semantics
> > though.. this is a list about helping people work in max/msp/jitter.
> > –
> > -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
> >
>


January 29, 2007 | 9:21 pm

Smileys or not, I don’t get this!

On 29 Jan 2007, at 20:56, Gregory Taylor wrote:

> Your managers’ ideas are intuitively obvious,
> so why don’t you [and those other users who
> aren't your managers' friends] get it?

OK – the manager’s intuitions are intuitions, but what was suggested
(by you) is that sensitivity to others’ intuitions is what makes an
intuitive interface. I agree that this word, like many others, has
become an almost meaningless cliche, but I don’t see any
justification for the following:
>
> You must be dense. Or from Myanmar [which is
> not nearly as intuitively obvious a name for
> that country as "Burma."]

Well it might be irony – but if it is I still don’t see the point.
Burma was a name imposed by western invaders – and I feel Myanmar
suggests more of the nature of the country – and if it makes the
inhabitants feel better then that is certainly more intuitive for them!
>
> :-) :-) :-) :-)

How many smileys does it take to change a lightbulb? ;-)>

Enjoy yourselves intuitively

Lawrence

Lawrence Casserley – lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
Lawrence Electronic Operations – http://www.lcasserley.co.uk
Colourscape Music Festivals – http://www.colourscape.org.uk


January 29, 2007 | 9:50 pm

Hi all,

(file this post under ‘beating a dead horse’)

I think the concepts of ‘intuitive’ and ‘somehow obvious’ have been
confused – which makes for a situation neither intuitive nor obvious. ;)

Intuition, as defined, does not rely upon learning, enculturation, or
other ‘developmental’ or ‘formative’ processes – it entails something
akin to the idea of a flash of enlightenment in Zen – i.e. the idea
comes from seemingly nowhere.

In the discussion about user interfaces, however, it should be clear
that some degree of prior exposure, learning, and understanding are
the only thing that would lead to a particular interface immediately
making sense (i.e. it is ‘somehow obvious’) to someone. Even cultural
metaphors such as ‘up means more; down means less’ or ‘pitches are
relatively higher or lower’ are not intuitive, per se. They are only
‘somehow obvious’ to those who share the requisite cultural metaphor
(s). Again, I’m reminded of the metaphor in Java that arrays pitches
along the continuum of ‘small to large’ not ‘high to low.’ Not
intuitive, but certainly obvious to some… :)

Best,

Steven

—-
Steven M. Miller

Associate Professor of Contemporary Music
College of Santa Fe
Contemporary Music Program
1600 St. Michaels Drive
Santa Fe NM 87505
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill
(505) 473-6197

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SFIFEM
Atrium Sound Space
OVOS
*opportunities for composers & sound artists*


January 29, 2007 | 11:40 pm

Nicholas,

Dude, your grandma’s new record is pure crunk fo sheezy! She drops it like it’s hot. Oh and thanks for the compliments/linkage waaaay back at the start of all this.

Lewis

Quote: Axiom-Crux wrote on Mon, 29 January 2007 09:21
—————————————————-
Even my grandma could create insane sound design
—————————————————-


January 30, 2007 | 12:01 am

One thing about this ‘intuitive’ interface business is how an interface
shapes the way we think and work. Stephen Johnson’s book "Interface
Culture" is a really terrific read in this regard. ‘Intuitive’ may not be
as benign as you think.

brad

http://music.columbia.edu/~brad


January 30, 2007 | 12:25 am

so my grandma said that intuition is what happens when you pay for a semester of school. By the way Shes working on a doepfer modular synth right now. Its turning out pretty sick.

http://www.doepfer.de/presse/A100_Monster_08.jpg


January 30, 2007 | 12:56 pm

Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
> Gregory, thats really unnecessary.

I think it was necessary, it was not at all adressed at you, but to all
those who listen to this word as a buzz word.
(You don’t, for sure… no smile, dead serious…)

I know very little commercial applications which, out of my personal
experience, I’d call intuitive. One is unfortunately ProTools,
(unfortunate because the company behind it is a pain in the ass…)
For my own designs, its always aimed at a specific person, which makes
it easier to do it intuitively for them. Doing this you learn a lot how
different this intuitivity might be. It depends so much on the personal
background/culture/history and that makes it difficult. If the knowledge
about intuitive interfaces would be more spread and layed down, I guess
we would see much more intuitive software than we do.

One simple example how different the perception for intuitivity might
be: I think that the Mac OS is pretty good at it, but if I have to
explain it to my father, its obviously not to the extend I always believed.

For sure Windows is not intuitive at all, because even long time windows
users struggle at the same points as I do… ;-) (don’t miss the smiley
this time…)

I use Max, because I can build exactly the interface I need.

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com


January 30, 2007 | 3:08 pm

bin ray wrote:
> heres the interface i’m working with as a text file

sorry, its not, it has only the extension .txt and still is a binary…

What you should do if you have a newer version than 4.5.5:
open the patch for editing, select all, copy, paste into the mail
body…(not as attachment)
If you are pre 4.5.5, go to "open as text" in the file menu, select all,
copy, paste into the mail body…
Or if you want to send a collection of patches (works also with one),
place them into a folder, zip them, attach the zip file….
zip seems to keep it in the correct format…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com


January 30, 2007 | 3:17 pm

Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
> I really don’t understand the point of arguing about lingual
> semantics though.. this is a list about helping people work in
> max/msp/jitter.

Oh is it? then please ignore whatever I posted before, I just love
philosophical implications/confusions/etc. which crawl up here, the main
reason why I read all those posts and answer all those questions and
especially answer if there is no question but a statement…
(Is there an emoticon for being dead serious???)

There is no maxin’ without being seriously founded in philosophy…
(You’d just miss the fun part… ;-)

And I didn’t realise any arguing in this thread yet, just thoughts
flowing back and forth…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com


January 30, 2007 | 7:33 pm

I have been checking out Processing and I must say it is pretty
cool. You can get some impressive visuals with very little
effort. I guess it is similar to what Cycling74 had in mind
when they introduced JSUI. Although it looks like Processing has a larger library of functions to use. Would it be possilbe to
convert Processing scripts into JSUI scripts?


January 30, 2007 | 9:32 pm

Quote: Anthony Palomba wrote on Tue, 30 January 2007 19:33
—————————————————-
> Would it be possilbe to
> convert Processing scripts into JSUI scripts?
—————————————————-

Please let me know the answer if you find it!

Best regards,

Rui


Viewing 69 posts - 1 through 69 (of 69 total)