Presentation (skin over the patch)


    Jan 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

    • Jan 26 2007 | 11:46 pm
      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 ----------------------------------------------------
    • Jan 27 2007 | 12:13 am
      Yeah seriously RTFM. If you want good examples check out Lewis work at www.glewlio.com, he makes pretty good interfaces, stuff looks great. Ill also post a few of mine later tonight.. 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.
    • Jan 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 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.
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 27 2007 | 6:23 am
      here's a shot of my latest pluggo:
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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 > >
    • Jan 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:
      Hope that's still an encouragement for your projects!
      Kindest regards, Philippe www.open-tuning.com
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
    • Jan 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
    • Jan 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:
      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
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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:
      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.
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 27 2007 | 3:33 pm
    • Jan 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 >
    • Jan 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 > > > > ----------------------------------------------------
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 27 2007 | 5:38 pm
    • Jan 27 2007 | 6:41 pm
    • Jan 27 2007 | 7:31 pm
    • Jan 27 2007 | 8:13 pm
    • Jan 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:
      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
    • Jan 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: > > 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
    • Jan 27 2007 | 10:40 pm
      or go to my website and check out the software page ;)
      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!
    • Jan 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.
      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
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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=- 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
    • Jan 28 2007 | 12:46 am
      Spacestation 2, pluggo doppler effect:
      www.oli.adbe.org/nonWS/spacestation2.png
      oli
    • Jan 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:
      Keep 'em coming!
      Vlad
      Vlad Spears Urbi et orbi
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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:
      slightly newer:
      (done for Doug Geers and Maja Cerar)
      Unfortunately all for OSX, non-UB. Patches are there, though.
    • Jan 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???
    • Jan 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.
      :-)
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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. >
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 29 2007 | 6:18 pm
      Here are a couple of examples:
      All the best, Stuart
    • Jan 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:
      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)
      ---------- \ ------------
      You could also use MaxLink to connect P5 to MaxMSP
      But I've found that oscP5, although a little more complicated, is much more flexible.
      Best regards,
      Rui
    • Jan 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=- www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=- >
    • Jan 29 2007 | 7:21 pm
      intuitive by the definition I just read essentially means "easily learned". Lets not split hairs.
    • Jan 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....
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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=- www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=- >
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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."]
      :-) :-) :-) :-)
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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=- www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=- > > >
    • Jan 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 - www.lcasserley.co.uk Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
    • Jan 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*
    • Jan 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 ----------------------------------------------------
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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.
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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
    • Jan 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?
    • Jan 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