PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic A model for the next BIAB GUI

Cubase is looking very sleek these days too and its exceptionally powerful reliable and smooth - light years ahead of PG. They even have the Sibelius team working on a new Score package.
Before anyone says it costs more, its about the same price as BIAB. The development team are simply way ahead.

Z

Of course! Jimi could have played Purple Haze on a kazoo but methinks it would not have had the same impact!

Comparing Cubase to BIAB is comparing apples to oranges, is it not? Comparing Cubase to Sonar or PT would be more apropos.


Regards,

Bob

wow! I like that!

"It's not the brush, it's the painter."

Hmm,
I can get a lot more done (a lot faster) with an airless sprayer than an old paintbrush... and the finish will likely shine better.

It's only true up to a point.

If it's clunky to use the work will take longer and inspiration becomes drained.

However, a nice shiny paint brush handle doesn't mean the 'brush' is any better.
Making any software look better doesn't make it perform better; it takes real improvements to the whole UI/UX to be effective .. and that takes a bit of work.

When I said "painter", I was referring to someone like Monet. Probably should've said "artist". As for 'inspiration'; personally, I don't believe in it. God creates. Man recreates.


Regards,

Bob

Hii Bob, I don't use Sonar or PT so can't comment, but would expect them to be better than BIAB GUI wise - everything is. I did not mean to suggest that BIAB should be like Cubase, rather it can learn from its GUI which is slick, stylish, functional and unquirky.

Its gobsmacking that we had to wait years for a mandolin to be called a mandolin, and we still can't hear a VST without first running the track - it's very poor, substandard stuff.

The last gui update was in some was a step backwards as the mixer is now stationary and unhideable.


My view is that BIAB can learn a lot from any professional GUI, even things like Paint Shop Pro. I can't think of any professional program that is so far behind. (IMO).

I just hope there is a total (competent) rewrite on the way, otherwise we are history.

Z

So if you like Cubase so much better, why do you even bother with BIAB at all?

I'm guessing it's because BIAB does many things cubase can't do at all.

To me the comparison is more like the decision between marrying a beautiful but dumb blonde who never wants me to touch her because it might mess up her hair, or a not-quite-as-beautiful woman who is smart, can engage conversationally on many topics, can cook like a chef, has rich parents and a strong libido. THAT woman would be fun... and so is BIAB.

Hi Pat,

With respect...

I was talking about the gui (again) not the program. I think BIAB can learn from photoshop too but this does not mean I claim that it should be 'like' photoshop, only that the gui could learn from some of its features and be slicker.

For the record I am passionate about BIAB, but I am very worried that its not keeping up. This much is seems obvious to many, though some want it like it is.

Z

Z-

I agree with most of what you've said. The GUI is abysmal. I also hope that a rewrite/redesign is under way. Actually, it was the old GUI that kept me from taking the program seriously years ago, before Real Tracks.

I just think that there are more vital changes that need to be made (like more than 4 beats per measure) to improve the utility of the program.

That being said, it's still the greatest tool I've ever used.


Regards,

Bob

agree with you too Bob - there are vital changes in many areas, fixes and things, the basics have to work intuitively first. Just fixing the bugs is not really enough though, we need a rethink, otherwise its "throwing good (development) money after bad " - spending on something that will need to go/ be heavily revised anyway. Style picker is a good example, its very confusing and scattered.

I also think we need to get rid of a lot of clutter - things like rationalising the menus, making the Gui editable again with show hide features, make the chord window more intuitive ( took me months to discover how to isolate one bar), revise the notation window, revise the style picker, make recording an intuitive experience, make the sequencer window do something useful...


I also agree it is in someways a great tool (lest I forget)

Z

I think Z has a very good point. I've posted about the same thing for years. It's an old sales cliche' you sell the sizzle before you sell the steak. The functionality wouldn't have to change a bit but if Biab looked like these new DAW's I guarantee you sales would increase a lot. Eye candy has always been important but right now, today? Even more so.

FL Studio looks absolutely killer.

Bob

I'm 69, I watched and afterwards everything in my environment seems quite normal. I thought perhaps at my advanced age I was going to be atomized.

Hi Z...
My question was rhetorical rather than being a challenge.

The point I was trying to make is that when products of equal ability compete, the one that looks best wins. But if you bring something to the table that the competition simply doesn't have.. then looks become secondary. This principle has enabled homely rich men to get pretty wives throughout history.

Interesting theory.. but does it translate into reality? The last time I saw numbers reporting market share for the various music making programs, BIAB was listed higher than a lot of well known programs that are being used here as favorable examples to emulate. But... BIAB already has more market share then they do... so something in this argument doesn't add up.

Hold on there, did you open up at least five different views and custom size them across multiple large screen monitors? And did you play that 40 track demo dance project through your speakers at a high volume? And did you turn off all the lights in the room (except the lava lamp) and sit back in a chair and marvel at the video wonders? Give this a try and report back...

Pat, I wish that was true but the world is full of mediocre products and services that win because of pretty packaging. Millions of people buy bottled water that comes from the same city water supply as their tap water because of the story they have been told. People line up for hours or days to get the Apple watch that is no better at telling time than a cheap Casio at Walmart (and these same folks already have every internet device available so it isn't like they need the Apple watch to get online).

But this issue goes MUCH deeper than just looks. Improved GUI makes a software product easier to use and more fun to use and it makes you more productive. Because you already know how to work around BIAB's warts you see it as bringing so much more to the table than the competition but I am sure lots of people (especially younger people) place a higher value on the usability/productivity side of the equation and when you seriously consider those factors, even though a product excels in one area, having such detriments in another kinda balances the whole thing out. And in that scenario lots of folks are gonna choose modern over Windows 3.1.

And one last thought...I know we are told not to judge a book by its cover but in a world where we are inundated with choices and options, great products that are ugly and not nearly up to current GUI standards are gonna simply get passed over by many/most people. Their loss? Yeah, but PG's and ultimately ours too!

This is certainly not meant to be confrontational, and I don't want anyone at PGM to take offense.

BUT - I showed this to a programmer colleague of mine, and without any prompting from me, he said: "What's this, some kind of cartoon?"

That's when I realized that it wasn't only me that thought the GUI needed some serious work. Let's face it, the concept is sensational, the capability is amazing, the functionality is astounding. But the front-end that delivers all of this? Well.... it's been described as cartoon like. No offense PGM. Just an actual fact. It happened.

Constructive feedback is valuable.

(I don't think I'm the only kid on the block)

))) showed this to a programmer colleague of mine, and without any prompting from me, he said: "What's this, some kind of cartoon?"

Sorry, you have to do better than that. It's like me saying to a songwriter, I played 5 seconds of your song to the UPS delivery guy and he says it sucks. And for the record, adding "no offense" after an offensive comment like that is pointless. And I say that with the greatest respect

Have a look at the main screens of some of these DAW programs that you are drooling over. They are looking very complex and busy to me, like the cockpit of a jet aircraft. Is that what you want, hundreds of knobs, sliders, widgets, flashing lights, all visible on two monitors at same time?

DAW screen. E.g http://createdigitalmusic.com/files/2011/03/GiantFL10ScreenshotNoText.jpg

Why not show one if those DAW screens to an elementary school teacher, and ask them how easy they think the program is to use?

Btw, if you think I'm exaggerating about the comparison to the cockpit of a jet plane, here is a pic of the cockpit of a Boeing 747 http://www.avsim.com/pages/0309/iFly/Cockpit%203.jpg
Compare that to the DAW screen above. And tell me which looks easier to operate, the DAW or the Boeing 747? To me the 747 looks easier, because it has way less controls, and has text labels on most items.

Here's a screenshot of Band-in-a-Box 2015 http://static.emediamusic.com/product_assets/bb/2014-bandboxwin.jpg
And, no, that doesn't look like a cartoon to me. I happen to like that there is text present on most of the buttons and elements in BiaB, unlike the DAW program screen that has just icons with no text for many items.

You should also note that the Boeing 747 screen at least puts text labels on all of the knobs and buttons - I wonder why they do that instead of making a gorgeous looking cockpit screen with no text? For example, doesn't the text EVAC on big red evacuation button look ugly/dated/cartoonish, and shouldn't they just replace it with no text and a clever modern no-text icon of a stewardess evacuating the plane?

Now don't get me wrong here- I am all for improving lots of aspects of BiaB GUI, and there's lots to be done there! But only in a way that makes it easier and more intuitive to use. So I'm not about to get rid of text on the buttons for example.

+1 Peter. When I first heard about BIAB, I was told what the program does. I hadn't seen the program yet, but that had nothing to do with my wanting it. What BIAB does was the determining factor in buying it

P.S. I would never buy a program that looked like this: DAW screen. E.g http://createdigitalmusic.com/files/2011/03/GiantFL10ScreenshotNoText.jpg

Another +1 from me.