why we will not use max 5
hello
long time lurker
rare time poster
only during extraordinary reasons do i post
my partner and i are a musical duo
we considered and debated very strongly if we will be upgrading to max 5 and we have decided we will stick with max 4 because of the rounded corners
everything is working good in the current set up
after seeing these rounded corners i did lose all interest in max 5
im sad to have to make this decision because im sure there will be some good aspects to max 5 too but sometimes you have to make a decision and stick with it
those rounded corners are so un acceptable they overshadow any positives max 5 might have
im sorry it came to this
long live max 4
I agree. In fact, Logics "sleek" design has also been dampening my creativity, so I have decided to go back to Studio Vision Pro.
Personally i love the new look of Max 5. Im a new Max user so for me this has come at a great time. By the time the upgrade is released i'll be more experienced in MaxMSP and the new features in 5.0 will increase my productivity further.
I think it's a great step forward and i'll be welcoming it.
Maybe there will be an option to revert to the original Max "look" while retaining the new features.
yeah, long live os 9! long live nato modular! death to those round
corners!
i am coming to realize that the transition to rounded antialiased
objects may actually disenfranchise the crazies in our community.
it's even better than i imagined!
On Nov 1, 2007, at 8:07 AM, ahsjikulcoinaiheuagyjosjia wrote:
>
>
> hello
>
> long time lurker
> rare time poster
> only during extraordinary reasons do i post
>
> my partner and i are a musical duo
> we considered and debated very strongly if we will be upgrading to
> max 5 and we have decided we will stick with max 4 because of the
> rounded corners
>
> everything is working good in the current set up
> after seeing these rounded corners i did lose all interest in max 5
> im sad to have to make this decision because im sure there will be
> some good aspects to max 5 too but sometimes you have to make a
> decision and stick with it
>
> those rounded corners are so un acceptable they overshadow any
> positives max 5 might have
>
> im sorry it came to this
> long live max 4
>
>
I got the impression from reading this thread that "r**nd c*rn*rs" is
a type of degenerate alien virus that has somehow lurked its way into
max 5 source code.
Is it not!? So what does it mean? I am probably too innocent to
understand...
p
On 1 Nov 2007, at 14:17, joshua goldberg wrote:
Yeah yeah. Go forward with your silly jokes, mates.
BUT we're actually a bunch of guys (more than you think) really really
not happy at all with these ugly rounded corners.
This is not a joke. We're really pissed off.
There's no way to compare our reaction to "let's go back to OS9" and
such crap, it's just silly. This is not even a matter of taste. C74
shouldn't have tried to fix what was already working.
Fancy antialiasing doesn't NEED to be round, correct me if i'm wrong.
People who wants to play with ugly softwares got plenty of choices all
around. You want your rounded corners ? You'll have it, so don't mess in
our complains.
We're seriously asking for an extra option to have RECTANGULAR CORNERS.
f.e
f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
>>>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
>>>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|
Now that everyone's made fun of this poor person...
I've often been dismayed by software- and os-developers' attitudes that photorealism, 3D, dropshadows and hyperdetailed interface components are a good thing. At some point too much detail causes eye fatigue and is in general distracting. I don't think there should be any detail in an GUI object that doesn't directly support the object. Otherwise, it's nothing but style without purpose.
I don't care one way or another about Max's new rounded corners. But, in all seriousness, I think the OS9 design esthetic is far superior to OSX, and I think Logic's v3 interface was far superior to v4+. The icons and objects clearly communicated their purpose without excess detail. Do we *really* need a photorealistic image of a HD vs a well-made icon? Do we really need overly-3D faders when the less detailed version communicated just as much information?
Maybe it's a "real world" bias people bring into computers. The sliders in Logic are *not* physical sliders -- They're software. Why do they have to look so much like real ones? The HD icon is OSX is a figurative representation -- Why does it need to look exactly like the real thing? Using that logic, all website should have a door and doorframe as their homepages, then a series of doors, filing cabinets and draws to get information.
One man's long and perhaps rambling opinion.
Adam
>
>BUT we're actually a bunch of guys (more than you think) really
>really not happy at all with these ugly rounded corners.
i'm with you f.e.
and you even did not mention the way the new [gain~] (fader) looks like!!
kasper
I agree with you there. I have always hated those annoying instrument
pictures on the logic tracks. But there is a difference between
something that looks "clean" and smooth and a GUI that is cluttered
with pointless icons and symbols. In case of rounded objects, max
just looks better (in my view, so I guess it is a matter of taste), I
don't see how it tires the eyes. In fact it is easier on the eyes.
As an example take cubase, up to version 4 cubase looked terrible, so
cluttered that after a while you'd get lost in your own session.
Cubase 4 has simplified that and in my view looks great. But it also
looks more smooth and glassy now (a positive improvement), so the two
issues are completely apart.
Max has always been differentiated from other important languages
(e.g. csound and supercollider) because of it's interface, not msp's
performance (which is way inferior to say supercollider and csound).
It is the user friendly interface that makes it what it is. So why
not improve it (not clutter)? That's not to say that the performance
shouldn't improve too...
Joking apart, my point is that sometimes nostalgia gets in the way
of a realistic outlook (this is not a comment about your post).
P
hmm
i also dont like the rounded corners .
if i want roundcorners i'll go quartz composer
and they have rounded patch cords also !
(and its faster .....)
-mj
Sweet!
More work for me.
Anyone who is ahsjikulcoinaiheuagyjosjia's client and who wants to
utilize the new functionality present in Max 5, my contact info is at
the bottom of the email.
b
On Nov 1, 2007, at 5:07 AM, ahsjikulcoinaiheuagyjosjia wrote:
>
>
> hello
>
> long time lurker
> rare time poster
> only during extraordinary reasons do i post
>
> my partner and i are a musical duo
> we considered and debated very strongly if we will be upgrading to
> max 5 and we have decided we will stick with max 4 because of the
> rounded corners
>
> everything is working good in the current set up
> after seeing these rounded corners i did lose all interest in max 5
> im sad to have to make this decision because im sure there will be
> some good aspects to max 5 too but sometimes you have to make a
> decision and stick with it
>
> those rounded corners are so un acceptable they overshadow any
> positives max 5 might have
>
> im sorry it came to this
> long live max 4
>
Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology
San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com
I was getting all set to post a snide comment on this 'rounded/square
corner' debate to the list, something like "hey -- I notice that max 5
uses *computers* -- I can't do my work THAT way", but then it occurred
to me that I do believe that interface choices can profoundly affect
how we work. Usually when I'm beating this particular dead horse I'm
talking about things like the "interface" presented by rtcmix vs. max
vs. csound vs. supercollider, but even tiny choices can make a big
difference.
The truly wonderful thing about configurable machines (like
*computers*) is that we now have the freedom to design the interface
we'd like to use for how we think about music. Simple example:
choosing to specify frequency for an interface as frequency or as MIDI
note # will have a very big influence on the kind of music done using
that interface.
"Oho!" you say, "All I would need to do is to use [mtof] or [ftom] to
do the conversion, then I can work with the pitch-specification I
want!" Well... the point here is that if the rounded-corners REALLY
annoy you but you still want the core functionality (and the new
features) of max, you can change it. Maybe jsui? Or mxj? Even a
simple [patcher]-like object with the happy old rectangles would allow
you to imbed all the new stuff in the old look-n-feel. It shouldn't
be that hard to do.
And the thing is, it is indeed possible to do this. For all the
any-sound-imaginable rhetoric that surrounds new music technology, it
is the ability to instantiate our conceptions of music IN the
instruments we use that is the most revolutionary change wrought by
this stuff.
Joshua Hemming schrieb:
> I agree. In fact, Logic "sleek" design has also been dampening my
> creativity, so I have decided to go back to Studio Vision Pro.
I also never switched to another sequencer ever. Studio Vison Pro is
still my hero. I keep my old G3 just for that. Too bad Cycling didn't
overtake Vision as well...
I am also missing Overture, never touched another notation program...
But now I have to go the new route and get Max 5 and Live 7...
I hope the new life will finally also ditch ProTools completely. I am
getting closer...
The final vision is to run Max 7 on a little USB-stick sized embedded
Linux machine (with rounded corners), I unroll my keyboard, my screen
and my speakers anywhere in the middle of nowhere and I can rock off and
scare the birds (if they still exist)...
Stefan
--
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com
joshua goldberg schrieb:
> i am coming to realize that the transition to rounded antialiased
> objects may actually disenfranchise the crazies in our community. it's
> even better than i imagined!
Though the upgrade to Jitter pissed of madame Nato, I kind of miss her
nasty but artistic postings, If you never take it personally, the flame
wars can't burn you... ;-)
Stefan
--
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com
>Rounded corners? Squared corners?
>
>We need no corner at all! Suppress them all otherwise I'll go back
>to Max 1 (alpha)!
>
good idea - ftm.mess seems to have no corners already (ah those ircam
guys!!, always at the forefront!!!)
kasper
With all due respect, I'm a bit surprised at the heated emotions about
rounded. To me rounded corners does not make much of a difference. After
a few weeks use we will probably never think of it, we1'll be focusing
on what we actually do, in the same way as with the transition from OS9
to OSX on the Mac platform. When occasionally booting into OS9 one might
regret the waist of pixels in OSX, but on the other hand we have to
accept the fact that increase in screen resolution is not only used for
physically larger screens, but also for screens with denser pixel
distributions while remaining the same size. So stuff demanding more
pixels than before has to be expected, making it easier on our eyes, but
a bit more heavy on the processor and GPU. But then again, it is easier
to upgrade and substitute computers than eyes.
The really important and great issue to me about Max5 is that which I
will never see: The reworking of underlying code to ensure that further
maintenance, ports to ever new platforms and future development can
happen. Improved useability, user-frienliness, productivity and not the
least documentation are all very welcome, but I would personally be
willing to pay for an upgrade just for the foresightedness of this
maintenance of the code at the core of the program. That's what ensure
that I'll be able to keep working and developing what I'm doing over the
next 20 years.
Best,
Trond
f.e wrote:
> Yeah yeah. Go forward with your silly jokes, mates.
>
> BUT we're actually a bunch of guys (more than you think) really really
> not happy at all with these ugly rounded corners.
>
> This is not a joke. We're really pissed off.
>
> There's no way to compare our reaction to "let's go back to OS9" and
> such crap, it's just silly. This is not even a matter of taste. C74
> shouldn't have tried to fix what was already working.
>
> Fancy antialiasing doesn't NEED to be round, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> People who wants to play with ugly softwares got plenty of choices all
> around. You want your rounded corners ? You'll have it, so don't mess in
> our complains.
>
> We're seriously asking for an extra option to have RECTANGULAR CORNERS.
I was about to respond about halfway through the thread, then I made it to the end and saw that Trond said most of what I wanted to say.
The new look doesn’t bother me at all. Which is a bit ironic considering that I've griped extensively about every single change to the look that Apple has introduced to Mac OS--System 5, System 6, System 7, System 8, OS 9, OS X.1, X.2, etc. I’ve also been pretty down on every look-and-feel change MS introduced in the history of Windows.
Compared to Reaktor, the Max 5 look seems fairly restrained. Compared to Pd _anything_ looks more aesthetic. I've got bigger things to worry about then whether the corners are round or not. And if it is such a big issue for a UI, we’ve still got imageburgers, don’t we?
-- P.
I would definitely recommend ditching protools. I managed to do it
last month. DP is great and all the plugins that come with it are so
much more functional (and better quality) than pt's. Though there is
something to be said about pt's simplified interface.
P
On 2 Nov 2007, at 09:11, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> Joshua Hemming schrieb:
>> I agree. In fact, Logic "sleek" design has also been dampening my
>> creativity, so I have decided to go back to Studio Vision Pro.
>
> I also never switched to another sequencer ever. Studio Vison Pro
> is still my hero. I keep my old G3 just for that. Too bad Cycling
> didn't overtake Vision as well...
> I am also missing Overture, never touched another notation program...
>
> But now I have to go the new route and get Max 5 and Live 7...
> I hope the new life will finally also ditch ProTools completely. I
> am getting closer...
>
> The final vision is to run Max 7 on a little USB-stick sized
> embedded Linux machine (with rounded corners), I unroll my
> keyboard, my screen and my speakers anywhere in the middle of
> nowhere and I can rock off and scare the birds (if they still
> exist)...
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
> --_____-----------|--------------
> --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
> -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
> ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
>
>
Man, maybe I have been wrong about this whole thing.
I noticed my productivity increasing and couldn't figure out
why...until I noticed the 10.5 menubar:
Tiger:
Leopard:
I'm a believer.
b
On Nov 2, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Peiman Khosravi wrote:
> I would definitely recommend ditching protools. I managed to do it
> last month. DP is great and all the plugins that come with it are
> so much more functional (and better quality) than pt's. Though
> there is something to be said about pt's simplified interface.
>
> P
>
> On 2 Nov 2007, at 09:11, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
>
>> Joshua Hemming schrieb:
>>> I agree. In fact, Logic "sleek" design has also been dampening my
>>> creativity, so I have decided to go back to Studio Vision Pro.
>>
>> I also never switched to another sequencer ever. Studio Vison Pro
>> is still my hero. I keep my old G3 just for that. Too bad Cycling
>> didn't overtake Vision as well...
>> I am also missing Overture, never touched another notation program...
>>
>> But now I have to go the new route and get Max 5 and Live 7...
>> I hope the new life will finally also ditch ProTools completely. I
>> am getting closer...
>>
>> The final vision is to run Max 7 on a little USB-stick sized
>> embedded Linux machine (with rounded corners), I unroll my
>> keyboard, my screen and my speakers anywhere in the middle of
>> nowhere and I can rock off and scare the birds (if they still
>> exist)...
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> --
>> Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
>> --_____-----------|--------------
>> --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
>> -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
>> ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology
San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com
I'm a little late to the discussion, so I hope I'm not overly redundant. Here is my take:
Max has an unfriendly interface. I have been working with it for about 7 years, and I still hesitate every time I reach for a number box (mind you, I am not a full timer like many on this board). Surprisingly, this doesn't bother me too much. Any other application would have me ranting about how inefficient this is. But Max, makes possible for me what no other app does, so I accept it as it is.
I always assumed that it's unfriendliness was no accident - that the community and maybe even the developers saw the idiosyncrasies of Max as a beneficial deterrent to keep them from having to answer the same question over and over again. But, with the increasing popularity of Max, we see people coming for the golden promises of Max, ignoring all the warning signs. This new breed of Maxer has been rising for some time. I don't think this latest quarrel in the forms is simply the typical luddite backlash. I think it has more to to with a clash between what Max was and what Max is weather we like it or not.
I think it is telling that there seems to be two camps concerning rounded corners. There's "I'm seriously considering not giving you any more money if Max is released this way" and in opposition to that is "I don't really care/mind" Not exactly polar opposites.
As for me, when it comes to rounded object boxes I fall into the "I don't care/wait and see crowd." But, as for rounded patch cords - yes, please. I haven't been entertained by one of those "where does this line lead? puzzle-mazes" since second grade.
Ian
I thought i would give you folks a heads up, but currently the PD
community is heavily discussing updating Pure Datas visual components
and aesthetics.
There are some autobuilds from last night which are much much nicer to
look at, and there is talk of theming engines. So for all of you
junkies who want 1 pixel boxes, but like some color, now's your chance
to pipe up.
Check out some mockups:
antialiasing for fonts has been introduced in PD extended for some
time, and TCL-TK has been vastly accelerated as well.
Just thought some might be interested.
tcl-tk is GARBAGE.
'nuff said.
it's a windowing system for people who can't be bothered to create a
proper windowing system.
until Pd ditches it, it will forever be the ugly step-sister to Max.
On Nov 4, 2007, at 10:30 PM, vade wrote:
> I thought i would give you folks a heads up, but currently the PD
> community is heavily discussing updating Pure Datas visual
> components and aesthetics.
>
> There are some autobuilds from last night which are much much nicer
> to look at, and there is talk of theming engines. So for all of you
> junkies who want 1 pixel boxes, but like some color, now's your
> chance to pipe up.
>
> Check out some mockups:
>
> http://eds.org/~hans/pdsketch/
>
> antialiasing for fonts has been introduced in PD extended for some
> time, and TCL-TK has been vastly accelerated as well.
>
> Just thought some might be interested.
I wouldn't make any claims as to efficiency, other than saying that the new max interface certainly looks "busier" to my eyes and this is worrisome. I reckon the rounded corners contribute to this sense of a more cluttered, "busy" design...
As a designer as well as a musician, aesthetically I think the v5 interface design looks bad, but of course i will be embraceing Max 5 with open and loving arms. But why is it that whether it is a car, computer, cell phone or whatever the new-and-improved version is by default a bubbling of the simple, clean, purposeful geometries of the past? Square corners - way better. Max 5 looks like it is going to be avaibable at Barnes and Nobles and this is not cool.
Anyhow, trivial as it seems, in my experience I have found Max to be generally well recieved by programers and non-programmers alike in regards to its edgy kind of lo-tech/hi-tech appearance - it scores a lot of style points in its current state, and that's something I would try to carry into the new design were desigining the graphics.
P.S. rounded patch cords make damn good sense
I agree with what says Trond and just above, David,
specially with the term of cluttered (I just learned what this word mean...)
when I first saw the new object I have think "pasty" but it is just an impression, and maybe the use of it will be different-in a positiv sens- than my first lightly bad feelling ( I really hope so).
Well, that's easy , we all will have one month to try it,
to test a lot of new improvements and the new design
and then we'll have the choice
Eryck
Quote: Kevin Shea Adams wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 20:39
----------------------------------------------------
> As a designer as well as a musician, aesthetically I think the v5 interface design looks bad ... But why is it that whether it is a car, computer, cell phone or whatever the new-and-improved version is by default a bubbling of the simple, clean, purposeful geometries of the past? Square corners - way better.
i'm a designer as well and i feel exactly the same. in product design i think the free formed surfaces are being done just because they can be done nowadays easily.
to me the new max5 interface is an aesthetical nightmare. the pd mockups posted above look much cleaner. my heart is actually aching. it's like loosing a good old friend. i'd be so thankful for an oldschool option. i'd pay for it.
> the pd mockups posted above look much cleaner.
You've got to be kidding. Right? Joke? Ha ha?
>simple, clean, purposeful geometries of the past? Square corners - way better.
What, curves are complicated, dirty, and aimless? Last time I checked out the "geometries of the past", there were curves all over the place, and they were looking rather elegant, too.
>i'm a designer as well
Sez you. I sure wouldn't hire you.
People: what the f is so f'ing great about sharp corners??? Nothing against them, I suppose, but... what is the deal here?
Wait - you're ALL joking, right?
Don't you all have better things to do with your time?
(damn! promised myself I'd stay out of this. they got me again.)
thanks so much for your thoughts pseudostereo! it looks like you... disagree!
the reason i myself "waste my time" like this expressing my view is to try help improve a great piece of software that is very important to me... I really can't see how you are doing any good quoting people in order to say "ha! are you kidding me!" but anyways, that izzz your time.
I think that the graphical interface of max is an important issue and this is why some of us are spending some time discussing it. I'd like to hear more from some other designers about what they think of max5, rounded corners and all...
leopard's rounded corners are making me... work... so... slowly...
can't... think.... gahhhhhh
On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:04 PM, kevin wrote:
>
> thanks so much for your thoughts pseudostereo! it looks like you...
> disagree!
>
> the reason i myself "waste my time" like this expressing my view is
> to try help improve a great piece of software that is very important
> to me... I really can't see how you are doing any good quoting
> people in order to say "ha! are you kidding me!" but anyways, that
> izzz your time.
>
> I think that the graphical interface of max is an important issue
> and this is why some of us are spending some time discussing it.
> I'd like to hear more from some other designers about what they
> think of max5, rounded corners and all...
>
Anyone that wants to get a feel for Max5 and it's graphical capabilities should check out Tracktion. Not only is it the ugliest sequencer ever created, but it's also one of the slowest graphically with plenty of audio dropouts due to GUI interaction, CPU spikes, and slow redraws.
http://www.mackie.com/products/tracktion3/index.html
http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/juce/downloads/jucedemo.exe
Honest to god, I will try max 5 out but I have serious doubts as to whether to jump on the PD ship now or later. Yes, this is mellodrama at it's finest, however, if max5 is even remotely close to tracktion3 you can count me the fuck out. And it takes all of 1 second to see the similarities, graphically, between the max5 demo videos and Tracktions god awful interface.
Cycling, to me, seems really fucking stupid for choosing Raw Material's Juce to fuel it's graphical engine. It's looks terrible and feels even worse. WHY COULDNT YOU JUST PRESERVE THE LOOK AND FEEL OF MAX4 ON AN OPENGL CANVAS?! WHY RUIN SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY PERFECT?! GREAT WORK CYCLING!!
Well, at least the licensing for Juce is nothing compared to almost every other library.
I'd appreciate it if JOSHUA GOLDBERG would quit acting like a Bipolar who forgot to take his meds. Enough with the manic, anti-believer sarcastic slander!! Every post from this past week has made me cringe at just how stupid some of the people running this show care to address legitimate concerns.
Yes, I hate the rounded corners. Yes, I may just not use Max 5 because of it. Even more so Juce. I'm not out of my fucking mind. I spent 16 hour days working in max and the fucker better look respectable if I'm going to use it for the next 5-10 years. What's so hard to get about that?
> i'd be so thankful for an oldschool option. i'd pay for it.
That's the idea! A collector edition of Max 5 with Max 4 design, coming in a
wooden box, for $100 than the normal price. Would be great if it was out for
Christmas!
J-F.
--
Blog, last update October 30th, 2007: "Mario Caroli Drum Kit"
http://www.jeanfrancoischarles.com
http://www.jeanfrancoischarles.fr
Why answering so aggressively against people who prefer right angled
corners?
I don't believe it is only about look which, I agree, is a matter of taste.
But it is also about how much screen space is needed to display values in a
readable way.
Rounded cornered objects with thick borders need much more space to display
the same amount of letters or digits with the same font size.
For example, a numbox without drawing the triangle could display a very
readable number in a very small space.
This worries me when doing gigs with a lot of sensors parameters to display
on a 15' powerbook screen.
And it is also about homogeneity of the user interface: one could put a
toggle, a numbox or a message box next to each other with the minimum amount
of screen space and a similar look (thin borders with right angle that
looked harmonious next to each other and there needed not be a difference in
look between displaying a text in a message box or a number in a numbox).
And this doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the other major improvements of
the new version. I just wished, like so many other people on this list it
seems, to benefit from the improvement without loosing the efficiency of the
old interface. After all, a good design is rarely "dated" (Le Corbusier
chairs don't seem to loose their values, do they?) and doesn't in my opinion
need to be replaced.
I have no problem to acknowledge that some people prefer the new style, but
I whished users could have the option of keeping the old shapes if they
prefer to do so, whether for aesthetical reasons or for efficiency of screen
space usage.
Is it insulting to anyone to simply state one's opinion?
Best,
Todor
>
>> the pd mockups posted above look much cleaner.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Right? Joke? Ha ha?
>
>> simple, clean, purposeful geometries of the past? Square corners - way
>> better.
>
> What, curves are complicated, dirty, and aimless? Last time I checked out the
> "geometries of the past", there were curves all over the place, and they were
> looking rather elegant, too.
>
>> i'm a designer as well
>
> Sez you. I sure wouldn't hire you.
>
> People: what the f is so f'ing great about sharp corners??? Nothing against
> them, I suppose, but... what is the deal here?
>
> Wait - you're ALL joking, right?
>
> Don't you all have better things to do with your time?
>
> (damn! promised myself I'd stay out of this. they got me again.)
>
>
>
>
>
A reminder, folks. Please use civil language and treat one another with
respect. We know that you are all smart people who are capable of
following these guidelines, so please do so.
w
I love this thread so much.
b
On Nov 5, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Wallace Winfrey wrote:
> A reminder, folks. Please use civil language and treat one another
> with
> respect. We know that you are all smart people who are capable of
> following these guidelines, so please do so.
>
> w
Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology
San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com
>I love this thread so much.
the fury, the passion...
I now realize that the Cornerists can't be silenced with mere insults. So, to amend my ways - and in the interests of measured, civil discussion - here's why I think Max 5 will be (contrary to their deeply-held beliefs) a godsend:
Good interface design is not (contrary to the views on this thread) about fitting as many tiny, itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy little objects into as small a space as possible without wasting a single precious pixel. Good obsessive fun, perhaps, but lousy interface design.
Good interface design is about deciding what actually needs to be where, and hiding or minimizing everything else. So most of your patch shouldn't actually have to be visible at the top level (or any one level, really) - objects can be encapsulated in subpatches, which can have their own subpatches, and so on.
My big problem with Max is that as patches get more complex, it gets increasingly harder to pick out the objects that I actually need to find when editing or using the patch - because most of the objects look about the same. And that's because each object is pretty much defined by as few pixels as possible, and can't easily be visually differentiated from all the other objects.
So I can't wait for rounded corners, thicker, more colorful borders, and anything else I can use to actually make patches that can be grasped at a glance. Max is a graphical programming environment, after all, and I'm looking forward to having a wider range of graphical elements to draw on.
Given such new features as presentation mode, the fact that we'll be able to zoom in and out to our heart's content (etc) -- these would seem to make this whole discussion a moot point... but no such luck.
that reminder was for you as well, barry.
Quote: barry threw wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 21:37
----------------------------------------------------
> I love this thread so much.
>
> b
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Wallace Winfrey wrote:
>
> > A reminder, folks. Please use civil language and treat one another
> > with
> > respect. We know that you are all smart people who are capable of
> > following these guidelines, so please do so.
> >
> > w
>
> Barry Threw
> Media Art and Technology
>
>
> San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
> Email: bthrew@gmail.com
> IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
> http:/www.barrythrew.com
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
A good solution, working also under Max 4, is to put the non-GUI part of your patch in a subpatch and then to Ctrl-H the subpatch and any cord (though this "presentation mode" looks interesting).
Dually noted. I certainly hope none of my comments have been taken as
disrespectful of people on the list, and if they were taken as such,
it is not how they were intended. There is a line between making fun
of an argument and making fun of a person, and I try, and hope to
have not, crossed it. If someone feels I did, then they can berate
me off list, and I will apologize again.
I honestly find the level of emotion directed toward this one
particular aspect of the Max 5 interface amusing. The reason I find
it amusing is because Max is a tool for me. The only thing that
matters is the end product, and the ease with which the tool helps me
create and maintain that product. Too often in our computer music
and media art worlds there is focus on technology for its own sake
rather than what we can do with it, and I find the focus on such a
small aspect of the look and feel to be indicative of this mindset.
There are so many apparent improvements to the actual work flow that
this version brings, that I simply cannot entertain an argument that
this one facet makes the upgrade unusable as being thoughtfully
considered. If anyone has an actual reason that this new look and
feel will impact their workflow or productivity (before they try
it!), then I would absolutely love to discuss it, I would find it
very interesting.
But, it seems that most of the feelings on the subject are the same
type of feelings that come out when there is a new Mac OS upgrade.
Some people can wax philosophic on the great cultural detriment that
brushed metal windows caused. I am not one of those people.
With that, I will somewhat gracefully step away from discussion of
rounded corners, as I should have done a while ago. I am normally a
proponent of less noise, more signal, on this list, and hereby return
to that.
Cheers,
b
On Nov 5, 2007, at 10:06 PM, Nick Inhofe wrote:
>
> that reminder was for you as well, barry.
>
> Quote: barry threw wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 21:37
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> I love this thread so much.
>>
>> b
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Wallace Winfrey wrote:
>>
>>> A reminder, folks. Please use civil language and treat one another
>>> with
>>> respect. We know that you are all smart people who are capable of
>>> following these guidelines, so please do so.
>>>
>>> w
>>
>> Barry Threw
>> Media Art and Technology
>>
>>
>> San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
>> Email: bthrew@gmail.com
>> IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
>> http:/www.barrythrew.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology
San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com
> The reason I find it amusing is because Max is a tool for me. The
>only thing that matters is the end product, and the ease with which
>the tool helps me create and maintain that product.
exactly - and this is the point: some people feel at ease with
certain tools, when others don't:
_I never felt good with a guitar, but feel very at ease with a bass -
the music I play with my bass is very guitar-like and a LOT of
technical issues would be much easier if i would do it on a guitar
(pitch-to-midi, or guitar-synth are obvious exemples) but still i do
it with a bass, since this tool "feels" better, to me.
_speaking of software tools, when PatchWork became OpenMusic, it was
for similar reasons than the change in the max to come: re-think the
software from the bottom up, in order to be able to work on it for
the next 10 years or so. Unfortunally they also did what C74 seems to
do: change the interface to make it nicer, colorful etc.
I was using PatchWork almost daily, and never got into OpenMusic -
spending hours in front of those "pretty" and colorful icons just did
not do it - for me. (Actually i got into max at that time - today
there is PWGL...)
and, software wise (code-wise?) OpenMusic is certainly better than PatchWork
so of course i am not against all the nice new features, not even
against those who seem to like, prefer, the new look. It might just
be than the new look (feel) of this - way better - tool does not feel
good to some.
best
kasper
--
Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com
Alright, so I think I like the rounded corners, but by like I mostly mean
that I don't care that much, as long as it doesn't slow anything down. What
I really like is the ability to zoom in and out. I am worried though how it
might make old patches that are crammed together look. Will patches with
adjacent rectangles need to be altered to see all the info or are the
corners shaved off without loosing the relevant display?
Also, something that I was hoping for was rounded patch cords, which seems
much more useful, as would being able to connect from inlet to outlet as
well as outlet to inlet.
My main concern will be the cost of the upgrade. I always felt like
software upgrade costs should consider "seniority". Ie. I have put over
$2000 into notatorSL upgrades (logic audio), and now the current version of
the software, which I haven't shelled out the $200 upgrade yet, only lists
for $500. Funny thing too, I haven't had to work in logic in the last
couple of years so I still have 6.??. Had I upgraded to version 7 it would
have cost $300+$200 to go to version 8. Lucky I waited because now I can go
from 6 to 8 for only $200.
Christopher Overstreet
rounded $1
> Good interface design is not (contrary to the views on this thread) about
> fitting as many tiny, itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy little objects into as small a
> space as possible without wasting a single precious pixel. Good obsessive fun,
> perhaps, but lousy interface design.
You may never have felt the need because you are doing something different,
and that's OK.
But sometimes, one needs to monitor an awful lot of sensors data and
mapping/scaling parameters and do so without constantly having to switch
windows (and yes, I use key commands to switch windows fasters, I use
subpatchers and bpatches extensively, I separate processing from control and
I know how to hide patch cords...).
There is not one "good interface design" that fits all needs. Some need to
show only a few parameters in a global view. Some have to show many more
detailed parameters, for instance in the process of setting up mappings.
And if you worked with a dancer or with a musician having 20 sensor axis of
wireless sensing on their bodies that you want to map to many different
sound generating and modulating parameters in a short rehearsal time, you
might also find out that it is most useful to be able to squeeze a lot of
information on a small screen space. And encapsulating too much the control
parameters slows down the process a great deal and removes the global view,
which is exactly what you want to avoid.
My concern is not a "philosophic" one in any way. I'm not against changes
and I like the resizing capacities and the smoother look of the new
interface. But I have feedback from the Max team on how some of my bpatchers
would look like in the new interface and the fonts need to be of much
smaller sizes if new numboxes have to fit the same space as old ones.
Not talking of the concern of cpu use increase while I wished as much cpu as
possible could stay devoted to dsp tasks.
I understand Max 5 will not include options for thinner borders or for
removing rounded corners. But it seems that, if enough users show an
interest, it might be integrated in future updates. Why are you concerned?
The new GUI objects you like won't disappear. Some of us are only asking to
have a choice.
There are many uses of Max/MSP developed by different individuals with
different needs out there. Is it too much to ask to respect other points of
vues without the compulsive need to insult people who do things differently?
Best,
T.
_________________________________________
Web: http://www.compositeurs.be/Todoroff.html
> So go away of this topic. You already got your thick
> rounded asses corners. We don't need your point of view,
> especially if you behave like a twat. Here is a special
> sad and angry choir for square corners.
>
> FYI, complex patches will not be easier to handle, they'll
> just be impossible to read because of puke on the screen.
So much for civility.
I thought we were having a discussion, but since it's actually a sad and angry choir, please, continue. My mistake.
Hi Todor,
If only everyone could have put things as elegantly and logical as
you have, I don't think that this thread would have got to where it
is now :-)
Of course everyone should say their point of view and discuss aspects
of max 5 that are detrimental to their way of working with max. Going
back to the original message on this thread, it's not so much the
expression of discontent but the way in which it is expressed (e.g.
"I will not use max unless they get rid of those round corners").
Your post and some other's excluded, the majority of posts are
debating the GUI issue on a rather pretentious philosophical and
superficial level (myself probably guilty of this!), failing to state
any logical reasons. I am sure it is not intended this way (and no
offense meant to anyone), but it seems that a lot of this anti and
anti-anti round-corner petition is saying "look at me, I am such a
geek", rather than discussing the issue seriously.
Best
Peiman
f.e schrieb:
> So go away of this topic. You already got your thick rounded asses
> corners. We don't need your point of view, especially if you behave like
> a twat. Here is a special sad and angry choir for square corners.
I don't want anybody to go away... Even not those who can't stop...
Whenever there is a discussion about taste, it seems nobody agrees its
about taste. If I get sick of cocnuts, I just don't put it into my food...
If I used to have a cook who suddenly insists to put coconut into my
food, I either encourage her to not do that (arguments against rounded
corners) and if it doesn't work out, I either change the cook (go Pd) or
start cooking myself. But any cook is free to do whatever they do.
Agressive pressure doesn't help at all...
I am sure all arguments have been heard. I am all ears for the surprises
the final version will give us...
Stefan
P.S. I hate cocnuts, but I have at least to taste the rounded corners to
know if I like it or not. I probably don't mind.
And as I said before, I prefer a bad taste over no taste...
Stefan
--
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com
Rounded corners!
For crying out loud ;D
Thats your problem???
I hate everyone who, up to this point, has said... "this is no big deal". Seriously, I wish you all would fall over dead. These rounded corners are HEART BREAKING for me. I am devastated over this, and, people who just don't care one way or another are laughing at me and everyone else that agrees..
Above all I hate Cycling the most. How could you stab us in the back like this?
Do you HAVE to upgrade?
Like 4.5.5 still runs on my computer, right next to 4.6.3.. isn't it possible to just use 4.6.3..
...some people still use ataris, I like DP 4.6, I still play playstation 1 games on my playstation 2, I luuuuv Civilization, not 4, not 3, but the first one, simple, nice!
Why bother with max 5, if you really hate it that much already, why not just stick with max 4.
Maybe after a while you could upgrade... just an idea.. I plan on upgrading in januari 2009 after I win the new year's lotto 2008!
:p
> objects can be encapsulated in subpatches, which can have their
> own subpatches, and so on.
This is how I work, but my guess is you're a Mac user, not Windows. On Windows, when using Jitter, opening subpatches causes a frame drops.
Maybe this is resolved in 5.
Based on my 4 experiences, it's also a problem if the more-detailed GUI takes longer to redraw. Completely guessing here, but will probably cause even worse framedrops in Windows (in my experience, the framedrops are tied not just to opening a new window but to how long it take to redraw specific objects.)
FWIW i'd prefer to keep the max 4 look of objects.
Best,
Tim
&t&tQuote: f.e wrote on Tue, 06 November 2007 03:45
----------------------------------------------------
> C74, if corners could be round, they also could be squared. Code logic.
> Please make the "round $1", "thick $1" messages available. Where you
; want. Settings, inspectors, global ;max messages... It'll end this
; discussion.
I like the new rounded corners. I'm not on the "I hate them" or the "I don't care" side of this argument, I actually prefer the fresh new look. I also can't relate to how upset people are getting over this.
That said, I completely agree with f.e. here. I could imagine plenty of situations where I would want square corners when designing a patch. I know it's been said that GUI objects will have a classic Max look. But why not try to apply these parameters to every object? Unless I am completely ignorant of how the new graphics engine works, it is normally a simple parameter tweak in a curve drawing algorithm to make it more or less curvy. The panel object already does it.
Max is supposed to be about empowering people to explore their ideas in a highly flexible and customizable environment. Or from the perspective of David Z in the Max 5: What It Is (and Isn't) article: "Max users ... see themselves as working with ideas. Max, therefore, is more of a concept editor than a media editor." Given that, it doesn't make sense to force people to use rounded corners if their idea is to use square corners. Think about it - *forcing* people to use a certain look that they don't like. Even if you don't care or don't think it will affect you, a lack of choice here is clearly a limitation. And it's a limitation that doesn't need to be there if C74 would provide this one feature.
-Adam
fools
Saloot,
It appears as if the designers have gone around indiscriminately applying the round-corner beat stick to everything in max; beating away at its sharp edges. It's pure S&M. Max is a little pussy now, all beaten down.
But the bills are stacking up at Cycling 74, that San Franciscan rent is up to the ceiling, and you can't sell any upgrades unless we're ooed and awed with a major change: so what better way than to round the corners off and slap a price tag on it.
So now all the Cycling employees have swallowed the round-korner Kool-Aid and gotten behind a mass-hallucination that this thing looks good. It doesn't.
These round corners are Max's mid-life crisis.
Max, the hot new guy in town. Yeah he really shaped up. It's an identity problem: when habit and lethargy set in, and we feel we're being pigeonholed, we'll sometimes overcompensate by doing things which aren't necessarily good and make us look foolish. Cycling got restless and ruined a well designed UI. Max5 is a revolution and people are left dead, and will go to PD-heaven.
When I see Max5, a number of associations percolate into my mind. I'll enumerate on these: safe, unoffensive, politically correct, starbucks, submissive, apple, turtlenecks, jetta, "cool", hipster, expensive.
And I am definitely not cool. The new Max looks way too cool for me. The new look is trying way too hard. It makes Max look like a poseur. Like some apple-wank-wannabe.
Can't you be a bit more original?
To those of you who keep saying: "TRY IT FIRST": How about no. I can see very clearly what I like and what I don't like. If you need some education in that concept then I suggest you look up about how Babboons can flip through a picturebook of babboon-brides and point very decidedly at exactly which one they like. In my case, it's like bringing me a Russian bride, with huge moles and hairy arms, and when I tell you that I don't want it, you keep saying TRY IT FIRST. NO damnit! I don't want to try this round cornered disaster.
To those of you who are baffled that we care at all about this issue, consider who you're dealing with: Musicians. Not only are we musicians, who are quite often crazy, but we're the most obscure ones. And you expect us not to have some very odd requirements?
To those of you who keep going on about productivity; what are you, a bunch of cogwheel employees working a deadline on the new spreadsheet? Since when are we at cubicles with our Max/Msp?
No, we're musicians! Music is not about "productivity." It's about love and inspiration. We're some of the luckiest people on the planet. We get to do what we love the most: Music and sound. We do it for the pleasure. We do it on the edge of madness.
I'm the boss. My work environment had better be good.
I wouldn't install an OS desktop theme with a bunch of hello-kitty crap and Barbie dolls on it. That's what the new Max5 looks like to me. I can tell you with assurance that I don't want this crap on my screen.
It reminds me of self-mutilation, where someone has filed off their fingers, and all that is left is a soft, round, nub. Yes, Max5 has got a gimpy little nub.
The round corners carry with it a whole idea. A certain value-set. An idea about not poking anybody. Not piercing. Not hurting. Rounding things off a bit. Losing your hard-edge. Being soft-to-town.
Well fuck, I am edgy. Some of us are guys with spikes. Don't impose this soft-edged mindset on me. I don't think that way and it doesn't match my personality. Not all of your customers are softies. Do I seem like a customer who wants things ROUNDED OFF?
I make all of my music in Max. Max wires are my brain. I think in this language, and I better damned well be pleased with how my mind is operating. I won't load soft edges into my brain. It won't work. I'll go use puredata. It's a round peg in a spiked hole.
A major point you're forgetting is that this is a dataflow language. In dataflow languages, the visual representation *is* the language itself. The viz is the lingo. The viz is as important as the features. User interface is king. That's *why* we use Max. That's *why* we aren't writing in assembly. We use Max because it's visual. That *is* its feature.
I've tried to overlook it. I've told myself that I should accept whatever crap was given to me. I've considered how it's hurtful when you put a bunch of effort into something and some people come and trample all over your efforts. I've felt empathy for you. But while attempting to read your attributes writeup, I couldn't care about the article's content at all. I could only look at the pictures of the ui and cringe. I can't do anything but be honest. I choose honesty.
And so I went to the forum and read the thread about attributes. There was only 1 reply. Someone said: "I didn't notice the round_corners_off attribute." Are you paying attention?
Rounded vs. sharp is somewhat of a universal concept. See this: http://www.indiver.com/boobakiki.php
-- the Booba and Kiki effect.
A color scheme or a design theme is an Psychological epicentrum: It actually modifies how we compose and is a filter on what we create. It influences your mood and your patch. I've tried tracking in dark-blues and got depressed. If you put people inside of a room with red walls they'll all be at eachother's throats.
Don't put me in a room with this round cornered crap or I might make a bunch of crap round cornered music.
- Invect
No more troll food. Please.
FWIW:
Without having used it yet, and with the disclaimer that I might reverse my position, I think I'd prefer black or grey thin borders and square corners on objects, but rounded patchcord corners to better distinguish between junctions and crossings.
The new object style seems a little over-designed and less readable (as code) to me - the objects attract the eye rather than the more important statements within them, so your eye jumps around from object to object. The term "eye candy" is very appropriate.
Round corners on everything reminds me of the early days of PageMaker etc, when suddenly everything started sprouting round corners because we no longer had to make them with letraset or draw them with technical pens or cut them with scalpels. Wow! Look what we can do! They're exciting at first, but date quickly.
Maybe it's just the differing border thickness, corner radius and fill colour on different objects that's bugging me ... I'd plug for a single thickness, radius and fill. Consistency helps the interface disappear.
With extended attribute setting, Presentation Mode, patch zooming, and under-the-hood re-engineering, Max 5 will be, if/once it is stable, a quantum leap, well worth the upgrade.
Just because we are artists does not mean that productivity doesn't matter. Presentation Mode alone will save me hours of tweaking. Which means I can spend more time creating algorithms rather than moving boxes one pixel to the right. I can't even begin to list the ways the attribute editing will save time and hassle.
In light of these developments, the issues discussed here seem trivial. The cosmetic changes are simply pushing Max into the OS X world. I thought OS X was butt ugly too when I first saw it, but that aesthetic change also marked a major re-engineering, and the result is a better OS and an ascendant Apple.
Programming is all about logical abstractions. The symbols we use are just that, symbols. If Max 5 were changing the meaning of the symbols, then there would be a proper outcry. But that's not the case. If you think that rounded corners change the meaning of the symbols, you need to take some courses.
As has been pointed out, those who do not wish to participate do not have to. They can simply freeze their systems, or move to PD and best of luck to you with that!
Max is not what it is; it's what you make of it. I for one applaud C74s efforts.
This reminds me of Wagner's Velvet sofa fetish on which he used to compose.
I always wondered if there is a modern day equivalent...
P
This is no discussion. We don't need to discuss it. We don't discuss
tastes. We politely explained our anger against this UI choice. You
won't change our minds, so simply don't try. This is no insult against
anybody.
I'm happy for you if you like the new look, happy for all these people
claiming they love it, even if they often do so with a patronizing tune.
@Pitcairn : this is no troll. Thinking it is shows how far from the
problem you are. Far you are, please, far you stay. No offense.
I understand now that people don't take this seriously, C74 at first.
I've seen contempt, insults and patronizing.
Like our minister answering "take a bike" to our fishermen in strike
asking about oil pricing. (And don't begin with "this is not
comparable", it is *just* the same feeling).
The ugly classic UI objects won't be redesigned (!!!) but the clear &
sober object boxes will be worse ??? It's a sad joke, isn't it ?
Not giving choice to their customers is a huge mistake. Every software
that is not customizable today is a mistake. It's hardware that is
rigid, not software. When it is, it's often because of lazyness or
contempt. Designing a software like Max is not like doing art. Coder
don't choose against the user. He tries to answer to him.
*At least*, my Vermona DRM1 doesn't remember presets, but she's looking
like a goddess, a piece of jewelery. My Vespa doesn't have modern
options, but my heart starts missing a beat everytime i see her curves.
Guess what ? My DRM1 kills every DrumMachine on the market in matter of
sound. Guess what ? The old engine of my Vespa still beats brand new
sparkling scooters.
Remember the guys saying design sucks this decade ? He's right.
Everything that is meant for the masses looks uglier. Cars, computers,
clothes, shoes, packaging, models, actors, bars, restaurants, chairs,
table, movies, music, tv shows... Have seen the difference between the
Virus Polar TI and the last Novation plastic keyboard ?
If C74 had brought us a new pretty design, we would have been so happy.
It's not a matter of missing the good old days. Enough.
This is no big deal, no big costs. Just a few lines of code that show
they thought about everything, that show they are classy. But C74 is a
smart team, they will pop up in this thread and say : "calm down, lads.
It was there since the beginning. Of course you can choose your
roundness, your thickness and whatever you want ! it's Max 5, not Max 2 !"
f.e
f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
>>>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
>>>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|
Quote: f.e wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 22:26
----------------------------------------------------
> @Pitcairn : this is no troll. Thinking it is shows how far
> from the problem you are. Far you are, please, far you stay.
> No offense.
None taken. Mine was the post AFTER the one you are referring to.
I just started using Max/MSP w/ Jitter. The 4.x interface reminds me of OS9, which I never used. OS 7.5.1 was the last Mac pre-OSX system I used, all the way back to my first Mac 512k w/ dual 400k floppies running the first Mac OSes (loaded via floppy leaving a couple hundred k to run programs). Max 4.6 gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that reminds me of the old days of Mac, like when you had to reboot them 20 times a day from crashes (not that Max crashes, just the look). Quartz seems to draw very fast with minimal impact on the CPU (in comparison to any Windows OS), so I don't think tha rounded corners will have much (if any) impact on how Max5 will work. And after being stuck in Windowsland for the last
On the topic of costs and upgrades for long time users and dropping software prices. I paid $16,000 + ~$2000/year for "software maintenance" on Maya (I bought it as version 2.5). The users before me who paid $120,000 for the software were irritated. I was irritated when they dropped Maya Unlimited down to $7000. Life sucks, but sometimes you have little choice but to deal with it Working has paid off my Maya license many times over, so I can't complain.
On the topic of interface redesign.
I have been beginning to learn Houdini (Side Effects Software). Just when I was getting a hold of everything, Version 9 has a whole new interface with lots of rounded corners and bevelled surfaces (pre version 9 looks very flat and much more like a unix program). Life didn't end.
If a few hundred pixels on screen slows down your computer and workflow enough to the point of abandoning it, perhaps you just need faster processors, they're pretty cheap now. And if you are an old timer useing Macs or PCs since back before OSX or in the Win3.1 or DOS days, you remember that everything is MUCH MUCH cheaper now. I still remember buying a 1gig micropolis drive for just over a $1000 and thinking it was cheap, a 20" apple screen for $2500, 23meg simm for $1000. I have no complaints about how much anything costs anymore. Heck, my last notebook cost more than this dualcore macbook I'm on now and was a zippy 333Mhz.
I for one, have little nostalgia for the old days of computing when everything was square, expensive, and slow because there was no other way of doing things.
Old habits die hard sometimes.
oops, forgot to finish a sentance and can't edit it anymore.
And after being stuck in Windowsland for the last decade and IRIX and it's "GUI" before that, I personally love OSX's GUI and love it even more for having a real shell.
I was a system 9 diehard till X was all that the new computers came
with..then I started to like it, I was a mouse diehard till the
sensor pad was around then I started to like it, new max should be
just that cause you already have old max why make something agaan the
same way ant imaigne cycling could charge money for it again if they
didn't innovate. why argue about new being new you already have old a
and it will be old forever starting soon, and it will be supported for
hella long til enough peole dont see its relevance anymore, and max
fivers are comlaning about the new telepathic controller virus of max
6
what are you on about? tracktion is great, i've never had any drop-outs.
the graphics are a bit off and definitely about the oposite of what
max is right now, but it has greatly enhanced my productivity for
quick audio editing.
what are you comparing it to, cubase? worst piece of interface i've
seen in my life.
tracktion quite succesfully made a major shift in audio editing
interfaces.
well that's what i think at least...
...isjtar quietly slips away...
On Nov 6, 2007, at 4:19 AM, jamez wrote:
>
> Anyone that wants to get a feel for Max5 and it's graphical
> capabilities should check out Tracktion. Not only is it the
> ugliest sequencer ever created, but it's also one of the slowest
> graphically with plenty of audio dropouts due to GUI interaction,
> CPU spikes, and slow redraws.
> http://www.mackie.com/products/tracktion3/index.html
> http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/juce/downloads/jucedemo.exe
>
> Honest to god, I will try max 5 out but I have serious doubts as to
> whether to jump on the PD ship now or later. Yes, this is
> mellodrama at it's finest, however, if max5 is even remotely close
> to tracktion3 you can count me the fuck out. And it takes all of 1
> second to see the similarities, graphically, between the max5 demo
> videos and Tracktions god awful interface.
>
> Cycling, to me, seems really fucking stupid for choosing Raw
> Material's Juce to fuel it's graphical engine. It's looks terrible
> and feels even worse. WHY COULDNT YOU JUST PRESERVE THE LOOK AND
> FEEL OF MAX4 ON AN OPENGL CANVAS?! WHY RUIN SOMETHING THAT IS
> ALREADY PERFECT?! GREAT WORK CYCLING!!
>
> Well, at least the licensing for Juce is nothing compared to almost
> every other library.
>
>
>
>
hi todor,
have you considered that it will well be possible to make a large
object, like jit.cellblock to display all your data?
this could even give you more screen estate.
max 5 will mean taking a new approach for several things, max 4 will
be around for a while
as indeed did os9...
best
isjtar@okno
Hi Isjtar,
I hadn't thought of that... It is a idea worth of trying out for some new
patches.
The fact that one can't edit the values of the cells without an additional
numbox and that all the cells need to be of the same size put limitations on
this approach though.
I'm sure there will be solutions but they would be time-consuming to
implement and would involve the need of redesigning older patches.
What I liked until now with Max was that you could open a patch written 10
years ago without needing any redesign (with the odd abstractions doing the
job, like the jimmies). We were used to this maintenance-free approach of
older patches and this was a very important element for the durability of
older realisations.
I would appreciate if Cycling74 did provide similar (same external size,
same font size and room for the same amount of signs) replacement GUI objets
for the old ones.
Maybe I should go into writing GUI external objects myself. This would give
me the highest flexibility. But I haven't found yet time to do so,
concentrating on dsp and control objects.
Or, If cycling released the code of their GUI, one could just hack them to
customize them. But I don't know if they are any plans for that...
Best,
Todor
In line with Don K., i am do remember Mac OS 6 vividly it was only
black and white, OS 7 ruined it with its gray line's.
On 6 Nov 2007, at 20:52, Zola wrote:
>
> A color scheme or a design theme is an Psychological epicentrum: It
> actually modifies how we compose and is a filter on what we create.
> It influences your mood and your patch. I've tried tracking in dark-
> blues and got depressed. If you put people inside of a room with
> red walls they'll all be at eachother's throats.
>
> Don't put me in a room with this round cornered crap or I might
> make a bunch of crap round cornered music.
Well there is a presentation lay-out in which you can decide how your
patch will look like.
Maybe your work/music will improve if you first design on paper and
off screen what you want to make.
Cycling is just closing the ranks with likes as the Aqua interface
and Vista, i am looking forward to max5 because i like the idea of
finaly using both my processor on my dualcore G4 !
Regards:
DO_Ray
I'm starting to love the rounded corners just because of the threads they cause! Keep up the good work guys!
i find the polarization of users evident in these max 5 threads to be fascinating. on the one side you have a group of users who have a very negative reaction to the new appearance, and on the other side you have a group of users who can't understand why people are making such a fuss about the appearance, when clearly it is the improved functionality that is important. you have both sides arguing passionately with each other & very few reasoned voices in-between.
to those who do not understand what the fuss regarding the appearance is about, i offer 2 points:
1. interface is important. //
the only way you can interact with an application is thru its interface. if a poorly designed interface is affecting your interaction with the program ( causing confusion, eyestrain, etc. ) it's obviously going to slow you down & effect the quality of your work experience.
2. the aesthetics of the max interface also has a functional component. //
since max is a VISUAL programming language, the appearance of objects, patch cords, etc. is going to have an effect on the organization of your code. alignment, grouping, following the flow of data via the patch cords, etc., play important roles in organizing your code so that you can understand how a patch functions just by looking at it. we all know the importance of visual organization if we have ever gone back in to edit a patch that we haven't worked on in years. if we organized the patch well in the first place, the way the data is organized visually is crucial to us understanding it later on.
i'm going to state my position at this point & say that i am among those that are dissatisfied with the new appearance. while i do not feel that the new look is a complete disaster, there are definitely some important flaws at this point that need to be fixed in order to improve usability. some of which are:
1. icons are low contrast & lack a unified appearance. //
this will cause eyestrain at smaller sizes & be difficult to read. while the zoom feature has been added, i have a feeling the majority of us will be working with objects at a smaller scale in order to have an overall view of our patch. those of us who perform live definitely won't be zooming in and out of our patch on stage. things will need to be immediately readable at a smaller scale.
example: http://meta.am/data/icons.jpg
while i feel that a lot of the icons need to be redesigned, you can see how a simple increase in contrast & sharpness makes things much easier on the eye.
2. rounded corners interfere with alignment & interface building. //
we can begin to see some of the problems here: http://meta.am/data/interface.01.jpg
notice the odd appearance of the patch cords & number boxes in the upper left. it appears as if the patch cords originate out of the top of the number boxes. you can also see how the rounded message boxes stack up awkwardly in the lower right & lack definition.
this is illustrated more clearly here: http://meta.am/data/interface.02.jpg
sometimes you need to make a tight interface for a performance patch (especially with some of these smaller laptop screens). the current message box shape ( & the rounded patch cords as well ) causes a problem with achieving this. i think the suggestions that have been made previously regarding a message to max to reduce or eliminate the 'roundness' of corners is a good one.
to the programmers @ cycling74: imagine if a graphic designer just sat down and started writing in your max 5 source code. the situation is not that different when you have programmers making decisions regarding advanced interface design. interface design is a specialized yet unsung skill: if it is done right, you shouldn't even notice it at all. i definitely think it would be a good idea for the max team to consult with an interface designer for max 5. they are not too hard to find in the bay area. the interface is about 75% there, but it's that final 25% of adjustment & polish that is going to be crucial.
On Nov 14, 2007, at 8:56 AM, m e t a wrote:
> 1. icons are low contrast & lack a unified appearance. //
Amen! Particularly the contrast--every extra femtosecond of object
recognition time is a drag and will lead to eyestrain at four o'clock
in the morning...
Thank you, m e t a, for your cogent, topical analysis.
Ean
Hi all,
I've avoided wading in to this discussion, as my firm belief is that
it has so far primarily been a matter of competing aesthetics and
opinions. This does not, by the way, undermine or belittle anyone's
position. It is meant simply to place them on a level playing field -
'he says vs. she says.' Stating an opinion as some sort of objective
truth just muddies the water. Acknowledging them as opinions and
aesthetics contextualizes them more clearly.
Appearance is obviously important to any software where the
interface, for programmers or end users, is primarily graphically-
based. I just don't think it's as simple or as 'all or nothing' as
'rounded corners = bad, square corners = good' or any other simple
formulation. Good interface design is a multi-faceted problem with
numerous possible solutions. My feeling is that the problems are
being over-stated and the specific issues are being over-simplified.
On Nov 14, 2007, at 6:56 AM, m e t a wrote:
> while the zoom feature has been added, i have a feeling the
> majority of us will be working with objects at a smaller scale in
> order to have an overall view of our patch
This is clearly an assumption. Since few, if any, of us on this list
has had a chance to use the new Max, it's impossible to say what
'many' or 'most' or any other generalization about 'us' might be with
any accuracy. I can just as easily foresee people switching often
between zoom in & zoom out levels. But of course, that's just an
assumption on my part, since I've not used it yet.
> those of us who perform live definitely won't be zooming in and out
> of our patch on stage. things will need to be immediately readable
> at a smaller scale.
That's why the presentation mode allows you to separate the
programming design/layout from the interface design/layout so neatly.
It seems fairly obvious that the demands and constraints of one do
not necessarily cross over to the other. Resizing & repositioning the
interface will be independent of the underlying programming layer.
>
> example: http://meta.am/data/icons.jpg
>
> while i feel that a lot of the icons need to be redesigned, you can
> see how a simple increase in contrast & sharpness makes things much
> easier on the eye.
This is a good point. Higher-contrast graphics are typically easier
to read, especially under varying light conditions such as in
performance spaces, etc. Perhaps some sort of global contrast, color
scheme, and other graphical settings might be forthcoming?
> we can begin to see some of the problems here: http://meta.am/data/
> interface.01.jpg
>
> notice the odd appearance of the patch cords & number boxes in the
> upper left. it appears as if the patch cords originate out of the
> top of the number boxes.
This would seem to be a problem with the spacing of the objects in
this particular example, not the fault of rounded corners or
patchcords, per se. I see the same result with poorly spaced objects
in the current Max. Assuming this is intended as a programming
example and not an interface design example, the spacing issue is
handled easily by having more space around objects. With the zoom
capability, even those of us working on smaller monitors (like
myself) should not find this to be an insurmountable obstacle - and
in fact easier to manage than the current Max with no zoom viewing.
As an interface-design example, the problems are too numerous to
mention.
> you can also see how the rounded message boxes stack up awkwardly
> in the lower right & lack definition.
>
> this is illustrated more clearly here: http://meta.am/data/
> interface.02.jpg
'Awkward' is definitely an opinion based on a particular visual
aesthetic. I don't find it awkward at all, for example. Someone may
like one more or less than the other, but this does not, logically
speaking, mean the other is in any way objectively more 'awkward.'
Again, you're certainly entitled to express your opinion on the
matter, but please don't assume it's shared by anyone else.
>
> sometimes you need to make a tight interface for a performance
> patch (especially with some of these smaller laptop screens). the
> current message box shape ( & the rounded patch cords as well )
> causes a problem with achieving this. i think the suggestions that
> have been made previously regarding a message to max to reduce or
> eliminate the 'roundness' of corners is a good one.
Tightness in this example is not primarily, in my view, a function of
the 'roundedness' or 'squareness' of the corners so much as a
function of the width of the borders. The width of the borders is
clearly more of a 'screen space waster' than the shape of the
corners. It seems to me that's where a message or attribute for GUI
objects is valuable - to set the border width. For some purposes,
wide borders look nice, for others they might be a luxury that some
GUI designers would rather forego in the interest of squeezing in
every last ounce of screen space efficiency.
I look forward to Max 5, actually, for a lot of reasons overall - no
single one specifically. But I also don't assume it's the end of the
road for further development. Are ALL the problems going to be
solved? No, clearly not. Are new problems going to crop up? Almost
definitely yes. But like all other forms of technology, things have a
way of evolving over time, and we can be sure that the Cycling '74
folks, with plenty of input from users, will continue to develop and
refine the software.
Best,
Steven
----
Steven M. Miller
Professor, Contemporary Music Program
College of Santa Fe
Home
SFIFEM
Atrium Sound Space
OVOS
CMP
>> while i feel that a lot of the icons need to be redesigned, you
>> can see how a simple increase in contrast & sharpness makes things
>> much easier on the eye.
> This is a good point. Higher-contrast graphics are typically easier
> to read, especially under varying light conditions such as in
> performance spaces, etc. Perhaps some sort of global contrast,
> color scheme, and other graphical settings might be forthcoming?
I just found one of these on my monitor.
b
Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology
San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com
Monitor controls might be a bit too 'global' in scope to address the
specific issue. ;)
On Nov 14, 2007, at 5:49 PM, barry threw wrote:
>>> while i feel that a lot of the icons need to be redesigned, you
>>> can see how a simple increase in contrast & sharpness makes
>>> things much easier on the eye.
>> This is a good point. Higher-contrast graphics are typically
>> easier to read, especially under varying light conditions such as
>> in performance spaces, etc. Perhaps some sort of global contrast,
>> color scheme, and other graphical settings might be forthcoming?
>
> I just found one of these on my monitor.
>
----
Steven M. Miller
Professor, Contemporary Music Program
College of Santa Fe
Home
SFIFEM
Atrium Sound Space
OVOS
CMP
hehe, this thread man... "I'm a so and so important person, and since you've changed your graphics style to be more adaptible I've decided you're all idiots!"
Brilliant. I wonder what the story will be with Max 7?
Animated patch cords. All of the cords will bounce around like the Moog Modular V vst whenever you connect them.
So fun to read after all these years
thats exactly what i thought ... i just read the whole thing from top to bottom.
btw, have i not been taking part here or did they delete my insults and whining?
3 thoughts:
1. very very few of us here are lead developers for front-end GUIs for commercial interactive software (with apologies to those of you who are);
2. those who are know this: ultimately, the public wants what the public gets
3. I am occasionally, but rarely, nostalgic for the look and feel of Max 4, and often hate many of the new graphic fripperies of Max 6.
don't get me wrong, I love aspects of old-timey max, too. My favourite is how you can really compact a patch to the point where it's just a solid block of objects... dunno why I found that so satisfying.
But man, I think the ui of max 5+6 is so much smoother and easy to work with for hours on end. I think we forget the utility in a UI sometimes, and focus on our customs more than anything.
(wait, i’m a hairy indian-american male, i think i was just as beautiful then as i am now… no actually, i may have looked slightly better back then, my face has gotten a little chubbier :p …or rather :P)
few more rounded corners eh? Happens to the best of us.. ;-)
And there i was, innocently searching for a way to have rounded corners applied to lines in OpenGL when i stumbled upon this thread... I must say it was quite the read.
It seems the cornerists have lost with the release of Max7/8 but who knows what Max9 will have in store?
This is opening Pandora's box... rounded corners or not, just like mac vs pc - or like the Lilliputian war in Gulliver's Travels over which end to crack the eggs from.
Oops that wasn't my intention though... I was just suprised by the heated debate going on
I did have a look in the preferences to see if they were able to reach something of a compromise but couldn't find a rounded corner-attribute in the inspector.
For what it's worth i actually prefer the Max6 UI the most so i guess i'm a "curvist" (or would that actually be a cornerist? How is the other camp called than?). For some reason patches seem less cluttered there and patching in Max8 always kinda makes me feel claustrofobic. Plusside is that it forces me to make more use of subpatchers, downside is that i like to have a complete overview of the structure when patching
YEEEE-HAAAAWWWW!! SHOTS FIRED! SHOTS FIRED! 🤠
i say it's more of a chicken before the egg sicheeyashun rather than a horse before the cart sityashun...
altho, maybe could just be a horse, before the chicken, ate the egg, on top of the cart, type-of-sichuashun
you spell it 'tomater' i spell it 'red sawce', let's call the whole thing off
🤠
David Z remarks: "when people would call to complain we'd just say 'visa or mastercard'" 😆
a true box has corners.
i wonder what the he/she/they of the original, not-so-constructive post thought when max 7 came out and gave us our corners back.
the only UI/UX thing i miss in 4.1 vs. 4.6 and later is "script new" - that really offers a different way of working. but styles & co, and all these annoying sidebars full of factory content, the presentation mode and all this, i couldnt care less and would prefer opt-in.
What?! No love for presentation mode? Blasphemy, it's a blessing imo