PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Wishlist for User Interface enhancements

Hi all, this thread is for discussion of any User Interface enhancements you would like to see. This can be anything related to the graphical interface for Band-in-a-Box, hotkeys and accessibility, menus, etc.

Please be specific with your discussion - you might want to suggest "make it look better", but please explain how you might make it look better.

Also, please keep all discussion polite and on topic.

I am glad you asked. Does this mean PGM is willing to spend time/money on User experience/workflow?
I will start with a bulletized list. (mockup examples picture available if you have questions)
This is the number one thing PGM could do to win new customers.

General foundation:

• Dark mode (BB is killing my eyes)
• Design around core functions (Chords View, Track View, MIDI View, Score View, Library (Browser)
• Graphics that look sharp on resolutions of HD to 2k (graphics are too low resolution and are fuzzy on High DPI systems)
• Support High DPI scaling mode)
• User experience where they only have what they use, and when they need it on the screen.
• 100% consistency of all mouse and global attributes

Panels: (open from sides, top or bottom that update data associate with the main window in real time, no OK buttons needed)

• Panels for most current floating windows and most drill down context dialogs accessible via chord view context menus.
• Combine mixer and track view panels into one comprehensive arranger view that allows editing and mixing from one view.
• Panels can dock or floated (on any screen) and are resizable.

Consistent key modifier behaviors:

• Identical, hotkeys for pan, zoom and scroll across all views.
• User definable hotkey

Context Menus:

• The only options are what can you do with where your cursor was when the context menu was opened.
• Context Menu are in workflow first order (from here you want to do A, B or C 80% of the time) universal copy paste action at bottom.
• Smart Context menu that have a recently selected order
• All Editing context menus, (currently available in the Audio Edit view), available for each track in the Track view.
• Context menu rules:
  -- What actions can I take with the object my cursor is on?
  -- What can I drill down on?
  -- All else goes away (because it is not In Context)

Toolbars:

• Toolbar 100% user definable so that it only has the buttons for the things I use.
• No redundant radio buttons

Drag and Drop:

• Drag multiple tracks to DAW
• Drag Track order

Transport:

• Move Transport to the bottom to give more room for a rewind to start and overview navigator
• Buttons that visually show the state as in engage or not
• Rewind to Start Button-
• Now time (current bar/beat)
• Loop associated with timeline toggle on and off for all views.

Timeline:

• Consistent across all views
• Has Chords on timeline that can be editable inline.
• Global Snap that toggle on or off (snap resolution options)

Cursor:

• Consistent across all views
• Supports:
  -- Starts from where it is at (exact time)
  -- Starts from where it is at (first of Bar)
  -- Starts from start marker

Looping:

• A highlighted region in timeline consistent across all views
• Global across all views
• Start and End are global
• Toggle on and off

Tracks (Track view+ Mixer):

• Only show tracks that have data.
• Context menu to add a tracks type
  -- RT
  -- RD
  -- MST
  -- MIDI
  -- User
  -- Audio

Source: 90% from public workflow video posted over a year ago and private suggestions to PGM.
Workflow video (focus on consistency and global behaviors that go with changes to UI)
WELL WORTH WATCH FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC OF USER EXPERINCE.
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=792013#Post792013

While facelift would make program prettier, I strongly believe it has to be done holistically. Both design and workflow have to go hand in hand. There have been quite a few excellent suggestions recently and I am sure this will be an interesting discussion. I will start at less obvious suggestions.

*Radio Bar - removed or made optional. Definitely hidden on default installation.
*Usable "Timeline" Navigator across most views.

I made a short video showing why I believe navigator should be re-thinked:

Enhancement for the Interface:
An instant access and placement button for RealTrack - RT#1152-Silence available in every view: Chord Sheet, Live View, etc.
Insertion would be determined by highlighting a selection of bars or a region. Once a area is highlighted, clicking the RT#1152 button inserts the silence RT.

There are currently 4,099 RealTracks. RT#1152-Silence is uniquely different from every other RealTrack and is specific for use with the BIAB Flagship program to interface with the algorithm in selecting RealTrack data from the RealTrack instruments folder and directly influences audio generation.

Years ago in a post discussion, I recall we were told that RT#1152 was the preferred way to mute a RealTrack in the Chord Sheet over the usual method of Bar Settings (F5) as it was noted RT#1152 is 'seen' by the algorithm as a RealTrack and that by 'reading ahead', it influenced the data the Algorithm selects prior to rendering whereas using Bar Settings is post-generation material with no information that any change in the Chord Sheet or instrument that could be beneficial to the data selection was provided to the algorithm.

This process created "smooth transitions" which was a critical improvement at the time due to there far fewer RealTracks and RT data so there was a constant issue with abrupt intros, endings and instrument changes. Using RT#1152 practically eliminated the issue.

RT#1152 is still used extensively in MultiStyles and the RT Medley Maker and is quite useful even today to manually insert into a RealTrack track.

Plus one for the *Usable "Timeline" Navigator across most views concept. The current solution from Misha and Robertw of a slider in a minimalistic, linear project seems insufficient for more complex projects and may need further refinement. I've attached a screen shot of an existing PG Music MultiStyle demo with 3 Choruses of a 128 bar chord sheet that demonstrates the need to also be able to differentiate between multiple choruses and identify the bar and chorus location (ie: bar 19-Chorus 3 in the screen shot)

New UI design should consider for multiple monitors.

There are some good suggestions here and user inputs are quite valuable BUT it would be much better if PGM hired/contracted a team of GUI professionals to guide this process rather than using random ideas and Photoshop mock-ups from users.

See Post: https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=838960#Post838960
See Post: https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=838961#Post838961

Robert

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Here are four suggestions that will make the Embedded Audio Mixer interface more user friendly and thus make the Embedded Audio Mixer easier to use.

• Find someway to display all the track column labels when the Embedded Audio Mixer is displayed at its default width. Presently only the track column labels of Volume, Pan and Reverb are displayed while the Tone column label is not displayed.
• Have the four track column labels automatically align to the center of each track column. Presently each track column label is left aligned.
• Have each track column the same width. At the default embedded audio mixer width, the Volume column is the most wide with each column width progressively more narrow. This leaves the Tone column with no width at all. Expanding the Audio Mixer width by dragging the left side to the left progressively expands the width of each column. But the Volume column remains the widest column and the Tone column the most narrow column.
• Swap the order of the Reverb and Tone track columns. Presently the four columns are Volume, Pan, Reverb and Tone. I'm suggesting the order of the four columns become Volume, Pan, Tone and Reverb. I've found using track Tone controls effectively equalize track tone so tracks can blend together without having to resort to plugins. The current column order makes using the Tone control harder than it should.

The volume fader's width may be wider (longer) than the other columns because it is likely configured to be logarithmic like most audio mixers and the longer length allows changes in position to be more precise the longer it is. For instance, on a hardware Mixer unit, 100mm throw is better than 60mm which is more than precise than a 40mm fader. Most software DAWs also have logarithmic volume faders aligning with standard audio engineering practices.

If PGM is serious about design, perhaps a widely member supported request for standard vertical mixer should be considered.

Track View:
Play marker that defines the playback start point.
Volume node editing (automation)
Track headers to include a minimum of:
ARM - for audio recording
FX, PAN
Also, I find current track zooming a bit challenging, especially using mouse. Both Auto zoom and individual track expansion should be in place similar to:

my suggestions Simon....

1..keep the gui simple as far as possible..(kiss concept...not overly busy) because i worry about new users who might be turned off by a too busy gui and walk away.
(yes i know its a challenge.)
reason being today we have become a 'gimme now' society so often apps with tons of features its a challenge for any dev to satisfy 'gimme now'.
(some people also wont read manuals...another developer challenge.)
2..maybe lessons can be learnt from an analogy....lol..
i knew once this great cafe in london with great grub...highly popular but it needed a makeover as some people werent going into it. it was a a 'workers caf'.
so the owner did a great new 'storefront' ...however some people still didnt go into it because it was the same inside.
conclusion...and imho...its ok to have a new gui (storefront) however also i feel ideally bb menus and dialogs etc etc and various user displays ie anything the user interracts with needs consideration ALSO...so like the cafe people dont get past the fancy new gui only to walk out.
frankly Simon i dont envy you guys...its a tremendous task imho for any developer
to renovate a legacy app. we often failed in industry.
huge kudos if you pull it off...very difficult to keep every user happy.
3..please consider us vision impaired in any redesign Simon.
4..one aspect i like about the bb vst plugin/standalone even though i dont use it is its not overly 'flashy'. so...when it comes to a new gui i would suggest not 'over the top'. what puts me off some music apps is too much 'flash'...ie as one person said to me once 'its not a video game' when we tried certain things.

i'll post some more ideas as i think of them.
oh i forgot...if some user screen commonality tween bb and rb could be implemented this might help new users in the learning cycle ??

hth/happiness.

om (ex developer and lousy programmer...)

I see lots of good ideas being put forward but not seeing whether considerations as to should more than one screen be considered.

Keith

Keith,
at least three (likely four) people in this thread want multi monitor support.
Vincente: "New UI design should consider for multiple monitors."
In the links, user robertw posted, multi monitor support is discussed.
+1 from me

I mentioned it in my list.
Undocking panels is relatively easy as part of the design. Making the panels work and play well together on a laptop screen is harder, especially if text is sizable for vison impaired.

I am still waiting for PGM to answer my first question before putting more time into it.

UI, UX, and workflow are a big focus for us right now.

Excellent list. I agree with most of your points - not going to comment on each, but overall two thumbs up from me.

Yes. We're going to work on both looks and interface functionality with a focus on workflow. I also support removing the radio bar and updating the timeline.

Interesting suggestion, though useful. I'll discuss it with the others.

Yes, of course.

Your posts were the inspiration for our recent meeting on the subject and this forum thread. I particularly like the idea of consolidating and updating the preferences window.

I agree. I use the tone control a lot more than the reverb control, and I also dislike how the 4 faders resize disproportionately.

Definitely.

Definitely, especially volume automation and track headers.

Absolutely. I want to keep things simple, and I think the rest of us do too. I also personally want to consider accessibility, which leans away from being "flashy".

I quite like this idea, and it's similar to what I've been imagining over the years.

Answered

No 255 bars limited. Make it becomes history

Excellent!
Mockups take time and never really hit the mark of what you can and cannot do.
There have been some excellent mockup lately, but please let us know where you need more clarity.
I'm glad you see re-imagining the User Experience and workflow as the same thing.
Sometimes it might be a graphical improvement and other times it might be a mouse improvement or consistent behavior across views.

In my mockups, I changed the Radio Bar to show just a status of what is currently selected (You can see it in all images I posted, in the Left top corner.
I envision that you could also, Right click on it and a drop down menu opens where you can select another track.

@jpettit,
Yes it time consuming to make a mockup, I'm already formulating a another mockup.

Feel free to PM me, if you need too.

Robert

@robertw @other Customers
Let's talk about common things shown in your mockups and called out in my OP list that I think all would agree with:

1) PANELS: You show at least two panels in each mockup. We have talk to Peter in the past about using them more. The already use them for example in the Mixer and Audio Edit views so the technically can do them easily. Panels are perfect to show related details/options for a main view. I think most would agree. (?)

2) TRANSPORT: Moving the Transport to the bottom giving more room for navigator view, more interactive transport buttons and other global things such as snap and loop states. I think most would agree. (?)

3)VIEWS: Core Views are called out in your vertical tool bar. Core views of the backbone to creating a consistent UI. (Chords, Tracks, Audio Edits, MIDI edits, Score Edits, Library) I think most would agree. (?)

4) TOOLBARS: You show very well toolbars being closer related to what they do or what they're about. We have suggested in the past and found in many music apps that allow you to layout toolbars that match your particular use. This both satisfies the simplification cry as well as making it more intuitive for somebody who uses the tool, for example, just to (generating backing tracks, practicing with backing tracks, creating songs for live playback) I think most would agree that simplified/customized toolbars is the right direction (?)

@jpettit

1) Agree.
2) Disagree. Whole panel that includes transport should be modular. Cling to top or bottom per user preference, or even moved to another screen.
3)Agree.
4)Agree.

I agree with Rustyspoon.

i agree with Matt.

I agree with Rustyspoon#

I like the toolbar floating my self

Look at My DAW setup

If you look closely at it, you will see many floating things show when I move the main screen between monitors 2 & 3 (Top and Bottom), my transport stays where I want it.
We should give users a lot of freedom to set things up as he likes.
A few things should stay where they are set, like the "File icons" and the Main controls on the left.

Here is a image showing some guide lines



Starting with your
General foundation:

YES (should be 3 "lite/med dark/Dark" and at the same time, good contrast) Dark mode (BB is killing my eyes)
Yes (See Image) Design around core functions (Chords View, Track View, MIDI View, Score View, Library (Browser)
Yes Graphics that look sharp on resolutions of HD to 2k (graphics are too low resolution and are fuzzy on High DPI systems)
Support High DPI scaling mode)
YES User experience where they only have what they use, and when they need it on the screen.
YES 100% consistency of all mouse and global attributes

Simon.

some added ideas for your consideration.

1..now that bb has the nice new tracks view i suggest there is a major market oppurtunity imho.
given the gui is up for redesign anyway...and of course i dont know ramifications at the coding level but lets consider (assuming the main gui is tracks view TV) that things be designed so that the user can do a ton of work in tv rather than flitting around tween different views and feature dialogs
One reason i like RB is i can do a ton of song work in RB tracks view
without haveing to leave the view.
another app i use...the same...i can do lots of work in its track view without flitting all over the place.
in summary mate...and this is something we tried to do in industry..
how can a screen (in this case TV) be designed to be a users main
work productivity center ?? so the user saves time and is super
productive ?? in conclusion of course if one agrees then of course TV
should be the main screen with a great GUI.
thus when the user loads up bb tracks view is the first thing seen.

2..given the above that TV is the center of the bb user universe..
i suggest a few added nice features to make the user productive
so the user doesnt have to leave the main TV screen...
..a chord track.
..a tempo track
..a markers track
..a lyrics track.
..maybe also a control track ?? where users can enter shots/holds/rests
etc and the sorta features that F5 does ?

the above hidden or shown at users behest and of course the user
can update the foregoing. the idea being to reduce the number of
dialogs and screens a user has to navigate.

3..also Simon i would love to be able to do all audio/midi editing
in TV rather than haveing invoke various other user views.
this would be done via menu akin to RB currently.
eg want to delete a section ? right clik over selection and select
delete or lets say copy a section...same idea right clik for the edit
menu after hiliting.

in summary the idea being to help users like myself work 'fast'
when the song ideas are coming very fast to us rather than being diverted
by various screens and dialogs and thus possibly impedeing creative flow.

its a pity i cant show via a pic what i see in my mind.
frankly its frustrateing..but not only am i lousy at graphics but obviously
on these forums are users with excellent graphic skills.
and i would be foolish to even try.


i hope i make some sense Simon re the above.
ie TV is not only gui central but song creation central and thus various
other screens/dialogs might not be needed with the right design
approach.

happiness.

om

Now we are talking. +1 Often when I show a conceptual block diagram, people tune out.
The best we could hope is agreement on the basics.

Light/Dark themes yes, much of BB is configurable in terms of color but the basic MS window framework will not follow the OS settings. I discussed this with Peter and even showed him the code and the current development tool that he is using but was resistant as it would have to be done a different way for the Mac. I have yet to get any one here to take it seriously. So, we will see.
Floating Transport sure why not. (thus, my kidding with Rusty)
The bottom line on that topic is to take it more seriously showing states and give it more room for things like Current Bar/beats counter etc.

Ironically since we seem to be thinking alike, I agree with your conceptual diagram 95%. I'm an advocate for toolbars being very configurable. I don't need a save button. The buttons on the vertical bar represent the major views and all else I'm in support of.

The user should be able to set what they want as the Main view. Everyone has different needs.
You: TV
Me: Chords
Others: what ever they want!

Robert

That is what my next Mockup will try to show "Current Bar/mesaure" status and how adjustments could be made.

Robert

Your right about windows, That's why I use windowblinds, That has solved most of my color settings.

My mockups show in the Windows & BiaB color settings.
I think that when BiaB is installed and opened, It should be with the current colors and icons so that users will not be lost. As for how everything else may look, existing users will quickly find everything. any user that wants to change colors and/or Icons can.

Robert

@justanoldmuso
I agree that things that slow you down kill your creativity thus an emphasis on workflow in the last year.

I agree the Track view has huge potential in terms of doing all your work. It was intentionally neutered last year as a start and just got a cursor this year. Many of us agree with you that it needs to be a primary place to work.
Ideally you should be able to do anything you can do in the chord track on a special chord track in the track view as in full Chord View capabilities.

BB is unique in that the progression is really the root of the process thus also a primary window. The Micro chords, Bar settings and Chord Settings need to be re-imagined directly in the Chord view.

The progression plus the library of musicians together makes this song.
The Track view can be a place to fine tune or as you suggest a place to start as long as the progression is there.

robertw.

re chords....a clarification.

the idea in track view TV is if there were a chord track that the current chord view would essentially not be needed. (maybe keep CV for those that still want it.).
so people could enter and change chords in chord track.
and thus no constant switching tween CV and TV which i often do now.

All.
on the graphics showing the main work area and then this features selection space on the left hand side could instead a user switch that space to the right hand side.
as an option ? for some reason i have a problem with lots of things happening on the left of a waveform area. maybe its psychological...dunno.
but i tried a well known daw recently and it had all these features on the left hand side of the waveform area that i found confusing and also difficult visually for me.
dont ask me to explain why. i'm weird...lol. just way my brain works.

one reason i like both rb tracks view and reaps version 2 TV is there are just a few
basic controls on left hand side of the waveform area so i can work fast getting ideas down.
not trying to cheese off anyone but maybe also consider anything advanced not related to track waveforms be displayed or hidden at user behest ?
ie not fixed ? eg lets say there is a advanced control panel for each track...
it wouldnt have the basics like vol/pan etc...but the fancy controls like duplicate track or adding a vst or other things ??

just want to mention something else also.

one of the banes of any vocallist like myself is singing a note or phrase too early or late.

so in many daws one just zooms in and highlights that one note or phrase and shifts it forward or back in time a smidge.
OR one can be creative with vocs by singing two tracks ie doubles and then mess around with things like offsets of certain notes/phrases and pans and vols.
lot of nice things that can be done with vocal doubles.
thus the ability to at the note/phrase level muck around with say vols/pans can be used creatively to enhance a vocal double.
for example lets say as part of a vocal track there was an off the cuff adlib...
'lets hit the groove'. but that one phrase one doesnt want centered like the lead voc
but one wants it on the left or right hand side of the stereo image one could just hilite 'lets hit the groove' and pan just that phrase where one wants.

maybe i'm takeing ideas too far...but there are lots of things like above sometimes people want to do to tracks.

just some ideas.

om

Some key ideas:

Jeff, good presentation.

I think, the cell you have for "Time Loop / Editable chords" can be incorporated in general tools to minimize clutter even further. Loop can be defined in navigator (time line loop points). Loop options - into Transport button Loop. Loops on track level - right click on selection.

Editable chords... (editable chord track not to be confused with current C.Track) could be an optional strip, similar to wide navigator. An option of navigator bar.

@jpettit,

I hope that the Main program menu is still at the top Left side?
As for the Title & Meter (I'm guessing Volume meter?) I feel that it would be best if the following Icons were in that location:
File Open
Save
Save As
and the rest of what PGM uses, should be optional to use on not. All should be on by default and let the user turn them off if they want.

As for the Style,Tempo/Key/etc, Transport, snap, Loop & Counter. they all need to be one Grouping, and can be relocated or floated if needed.

Clarification on the things should be made:
The Gray buttons you have for Tracks, Chords, Edit, Mix & Musicians, are they the same as what I put in my mockup.
If so then also make that a group that could be moved or floated, and also if it is, then what is the Navigator?
FYI, the only reason I put them on the Left, is because, having things on both the top and bottom, only makes less room for the current view ares (Wide but not to tall).
I Never saw in any DAW or Program for that matter with it set to the right.
With the exception of it having Both sides with something other that the Main view.
Mostly everybody's monitors today are wider that tall.

I feel that it may be best to first to define what groups should always be together (example: File.Save/Save as.......) and Transport controls, what should be with them?

Is the Time/Loop the timeline? and What to you mean by (Editable Chords)?

In the Options Details, I also feel that is where some of the editing could be done (Think of F5 on steroids)

Once we define the Main groups, then, I think we could better define the overall Main layout.

Where did the Radio bar go to?

Robert

EDIT re-read many topics here...
1) That are is the timeline.
1a) Timeline is where loop indicator is in all DAWs. In you PM we are on same page.

2) not sure what you mean but it would work identical to what you show in Cakewalk and in other DAWs (your PM video is in sync with my thoughts)

I thought that was the timeline

Thanks,

Robert

That's true in BIG button view, and even there it doesn't follow cursor precisely. Switch to Minimalistic view and it becomes a navigator. Bottom line, I believe this strip SHOULD become the time line and a "navigator" should be something common like this:

It is,
Timeline has several roles.
1) Time
2) Loop indicator as in all DAWs
3) Unique to BB (a place to currently show chords and in the future edit them)

To me the radio bar, should only be a status window, that will show you what track is currently selected and can be selected to change the current track.
But if you have more than 1 track selected, does not work so well.

I actually like the Navigator slider better, and should be with transport.

So maybe best to remove!



Robert

I'm following this thread with great interest. I think some very good ideas have been presented.

I have a question regarding replacing the current Timeline with a Navigator slider bar. With the Navigator slider bar will there be a way to easily navigate within middle choruses? With the current Timeline view part markers can help a user identify choruses and see how much of the timeline each chorus occupies. A user can count part markers and then click in the space between two part markers to fairly accurately navigate to a specific point within the song project.

Typically a DAW illustrates song project time sequentially. Band-in-a-Box can mimic a DAW and display a song sequentially by unfolding a song. But, the default display for Band-in-a-Box more closely mimics sheet music with intro, chorus and end and normally has more than one chorus. How will the Navigator slider bar display multiple choruses?

Jim - replace "navigator" in Minimalistic View with slider. Other views don't have that. This becomes useless with ~ 70 bars as I've shown in one of the videos in this thread.

1) Yes of course (like all apps), nobody is challenging that. (Well actually I talked to Peter three years ago about 650 items in the menu. He explained why (people who use screen readers) and they have been improving slowly over the years.)
2) Title = Title to song. (no change) Meter = I/O levels (no change)
3) Yes, you mentioned that, and we differ. (That is what I called a custom Toolbar)
3a) OK, it might be challenging for them to satisfy all old UI and new ideas as a default. I assume they would offer multiple themes.
4) Yes, your groups and mine are subtly different. PGM will ultimately decide. There is goodness in a few things being anchored.
4a) Navigator is a term used by some programs to show an "overview". I personally do not use it, but Rusty feels strongly about it.
5) All panels can show and hide. The nice thing about modern software is "panels" are really always there and populated with the current details. Modern Panels open much quicker than old Dialogue Windows and are much less intrusive.
5a) Most DAWs put detailed options/properties on the left and browsers/selections on the right. Some Video programs (and BB) put properties in the right.
6) Yes, I like that idea, but the customers will not always agree, and PGM is the final designer. All this is just food for thought.
7) Yes read: 1) Timeline 2) loop start/stop indicator 3) Chords that are associated with the bar-beat. In DAW language a Chord track (BB currently shows but does not allow to edit)
8) Exactly. Thing more than F5, think Chord Settings, Bar settings, Micro Chords, etc. They are all properties of a bar and beat.
9) Maybe, a) keep in mind we are just making suggestion, b) we will not all agree, c) a picture is worth a thousand words. PGM will not do a complete rewrite. They will look for things that are easy to do with the current code base.
10) Yes they are redundant. I do like your idea of showing current track while in chord view. Track view is obvious. Piano and score are also already shown. They give options to switch tracks so maybe that is another base global idea.

Earlier you asked about the grey buttons. Yes, they are in essence the same as your left buttons (main views). Chord and Track are the same, Edit is dynamic in that it opens a view for whatever track type you are on. Thís assume PGM will not support all the edits being accessible though the Tracks view at least for now, The mixer assumes they will not add the fuller mixer capability to the track view at least not yet. The Musician button is my "Common sense" name for the Multi Picker (you are picking musicians to generate).

Finals thoughts: As mentioned in my first post, the graphic layout is only half of the User Experience story. The other half is consistency with behavior (things you do with your hands). (see workflow videos in OP)

The input from everyone has been really good, but I would like to hear from more customers as well as more from PGM especially Peter.

Thanks

All..

so far various aspects of a gui have been presented.
but i hope you all agree with me there is a need also to
come up with a set of criteria how a final design should be evaluated ?
us on this thread are just a very small microcosm of the user base.

this is what...from my experience in industry...is the gui
'elephant in the room' as things can sometimes get emotional.

so what should those criteria be ??
i hope everyone ccontributes what the criteria should be...
ie an open collegial discussion.

heres my input..a new gui should be judged on the following...
(feel free to disagree/add your own criteria)...

does the new gui do the following..

1..bring even the most sceptical people to open the app and investigate
further ?...its sorta akin to one going past a restaurant and
being impressed with the 'storefront' then peeking in the windows
and smelling some aromas/looking at the menu etc.
2..cut down the learning cycle for new users ?
3..does the gui cut down the amount of time users might have to pore
through the manual ?. << reason for this being many people just dislike
going through manuals. just human nature.
4..does the gui cut down the size/complexity of the user manual.
eg my wife and i just got a nice new clock radio.
we love it...but the manual is difficult to read due to print size
plus it gets pretty complex in places.
ie press this button then that button to do xyz etc.
5..will useing the gui and the app lead a new user, when leaving
go 'super wow i'm gonna tell my friends setting up project studios
about this app." ie the user has a happy experience.
6..does the gui incorporate fly by tips that can be turned off
once a new user gets experience useing the app.
7..does the gui allow for 'tips of the day'? which i find usefull
when i'm useing rb for example.
and does the gui allow access to a deeper menu of tips ?
8..can the gui be configured to the users likeing ?
ie flexibile ? but how far should this be taken by the designers ?
in order not to bloat the app so its difficult to maintain by the app
programmers ?
9..how much does a user like the icons in the app ?
are there too many ? and have too many icons be used that might confuse the user ?
10..finally how much does the user like the overall look
of the app ? does it allow the user to work fast without haveing
to be diverted from the creative process ?
has too much 'flash' been used.
11..does the app cater to people with vision problems ?

(i'm sure ive missed some important judgeing criteria above.)

i think the reader will get the gist of what ive detailed and hope the
reader agrees that the above are important appropo questions to be asked.
as ive said its darn difficult and even impossible to keep everyone
happy. lets also consider that pg apps support various languages..
and thus various cultures around the world will be useing the app.

so i ask should a set of gui judgeing criteria be discussed also ?
how is any final gui design going to be evaluated 'objectively'.
just my thoughts.

Simon...do you think judgeing criteria are needed ?

om

#2 That's why we are discussing a new GUI
#8 Again that is our intent!
#9 That's why I suggest that the current icons be used, and Let the user change them if he/she wants
#10 What ever it finally looks like, I'm sure it would be much better than it is currently is and PGM will never satisfy everyone.
as to the creative process, only the person using it can answer, so... again "PGM will never satisfy everyone".
as to 'flash' only the person using it can answer, so... again "PGM will never satisfy everyone".

With all of these mockups and suggestions, PGM really are the only one that has the finial say as to how it looks and functions.


FWIW

I'm sure that "good change" may not come by 2026 (Could be wrong), I think that maybe PGM could also consider this:

Release BiaB the same as always, with fixes and maybe some minor changes.

While working on a New multi platform BiaB, but rename it.....
PGSP= PG Session players
or
SSP= Studio Session players

Much like Cakewalk did with it's product when changing the name to Sonar.

Also, PGM always offers new "xxxPAC" each year, using the best "Studio Session players" in the music world.

I would also like to see if they could repackage some of their PAC's, make:

In styles include soloist, and Multi Drums
Blues styles
Country styles
Rock styles
Bluegrass styles
On...&..On...

Or do it by:

Detroit styles (Think Motown)
Alabama styles (Think muscle shoals)
Nashville Styles (Think Memphis mob)
La Styles (Think Wreaking crew)
Chicago styles (Think Chicago the band)
USA styles
British styles
On...&..On...

Perhaps also offer each pack as an audio pack.
Doing this would be easier on some peoples wallet! and over time, they may purchase more Audio styles, eventually having everything.

I feel that this would help with the new renamed BiaB

I say this because, I know of some people that do not like BiaB in it's current form, hence the do not own it.
If they hear that PGM has released a new software, they may just take a look at it and try it.




Robert

If you look as many of the other DAW user forum's, you will find even though the DAW-XYZ ( can be any DAW or product on the market).
If they have let's say 60,000 users, only about 30 to maybe 200 users (may be more or less), will even care and look at at a thread on the GUI.
It's a very small percentage.

Just look an this site, very few are looking at this thread.
That should not stop change, PGM need to press forward.

Robert

*For the record.
Cakewalk transition to Nu Sonar.. While they re-drew UI to vector, leaving 95% of UI logic intact. As it was mentioned by their chief engineer, they left most of the legacy code. Some from decades ago. No Mac for Cakewalk/Sonar as well, even when millions of $ were dropped in it in the past 6+ years.

BIAB is FAST and overall pretty stable. As an end user I see no down sides for old code, if it allows to modernize UI and enhance workflow the right way.

If you go back years in the forum and look at the posts about this "GUI" this has all been said before.
To get at least themes and layouts like other application had you will have to go back to the 2000's and start there as things these days in other software are just too far ahead of what can be conceived.
It would be impossible I realize to go too modern in one step (as below videos show or as you have in the JUCE BB Plugin), but you don't just want to do another redecorate then in another 10 years do another.
At least try and get Themes and Layouts, this will let users customize what they need, simple for learning, complex, high DPI, multi monitors, touch screen etc.. PG will have to make some up that comes with the product as a choice rather than me having to make them as in the past with color/animated icon sets and other GUI elements colors etc.. for users, and maybe one other user made one up to share.

Current Modern DAW GUI User Total Customization
I'm not saying to go this modern, that is understandable with the Delphi, but there might be some ideas there, you don't want to be spending too much time having to do it for Mac also. Custom Menus might be too big a step, but basic Themes and Layouts should do for now for most users.

Robert/All.

thanks for your comments re my 11 points Robert which are based on many many meetings re gui's when i worked in industry ie..this isnt my first rodeo re the subject...
of course its pg's final decision.
they were just a summary of things ive seen various people want in
the past in any gui.

and i'll leave it there as i dont think i can contribute
further ideas.

happiness.

om.

Indeed all these ideas and far more have been raised before. There are some newer folks here so I'll just add a quick observation on the history.

After many years of requests and suggestions, the GUI was given a substantial improvement at the end of 2017, for BIAB 2018.

I liked several things about how it was done:

• They left the old GUI available, so you can still toggle between them by using Ctrl+T or clicking on the little icons. People could adapt to the new one (like I did overnight) or continue to use the familiar one. Using the new GUI was aided by creating your own collection of icons in the Custom Toolbar.
  
• They increased considerably the space available for the Chordsheet View.
• They began making more of the windows separate for resizing or new placement.

Couple of ideas for panels:

I will work backwards from your response.

"This becomes useless with ~ 70 bars" Please clarify "This". I'm assuming you mean the current Timeline Bar becomes useless when a song project is greater than 70 bars.

How will the Navigator Bar or Navigator Slider Bar make song project navigation easier?

How will the Navigator Bar or Navigator Slider Bar visualize multiple choruses?

"Other views don't have that" I'm assuming you mean a Timeline Bar. Presently the Timeline Bar is available in the Chordsheet, Tracks, Notation and Piano Roll windows so it is available in the majority of the windows.

I know a mock-up is just that, a visual presentation of an idea. I'm not attacking your ideas. I'm just trying to better understand them and to help address some of the possible pitfalls.

One possible way to enable the Timeline, Navigator Bar or Navigator Slider to be more precise would be to enlarge or magnify part of the line to display bar information such as bar numbers, part markers and chords. The how many bars per line preference setting could also determine how many bars are magnified. That way the user could move the magnifier and easily determine where they are at within a song project.

Jim,
in minimalistic view, what you call a "time line" (under transport buttons) was done in a manner of navigator. Unfortunately it was poorly executed and is pretty much useless as navigator or timeline on medium size project of about 70 bars or more. Don't confuse with a Big button view (the one I presume you are using), where the timeline actually serves a purpose. What I proposed is do a true Slider Navigator instead of "whatever you want to call it" item below transport buttons in minimalistic view and do a full length time line across the screen (like one in Big button view). Does that make sense?

How about the "Timeline/Navigator Bar" stay full length just under the top menu?
Could that help.

Here is my mockup showing how the work area works


Everyone's suggestions are great, let's see what PGM developers come up with., I'm sure that it will be a mixture of everything.


Robert

Navigator is not a timeline. Robert, have you used a navigator in DAW? I use it all the time, for years and find the tool absolutely brilliant. While it (navigator) will have limited usage in Chord View, all other linear views will have full benefit.

P.S. There is a larger conversation about transport functions in BIAB that plays a role in this. It's a much deeper subject that deserves a separate discussion. Think about why there is no "rewind" button

I think there has been too much neglect rather than taking a purposeful interest in UI improvements over the years, instead of GUI requests lately bringing about this current thread having to be the catalyst to forced change.

It should be a normal thing as you can see the big leaps forward each time in this video rather than just adding "New Features" as selling points concentrate on the UI evolution constant improvement rather the leaving it in the past for so long with too much neglect.
I said about jail breaking the dialogs for years and then had to force this finally to come around and now it's common, I should not be here now having to force normal standard things all the time, it makes me feel like some crazy person and takes a lot of energy out of me because there's always big fights and resistance through lack of understanding.

Good question.
Because rewind to zero was hard coded into generate?
Because rewind to last click spot was defaulting to zero if no click?

I wish it would stay where I was working.
I will click RTZ if that is what I want.

If it is this navigator bar:

then yes, it is useless, as you cannot easily see the song current position while the song is playing. I asked for better contrast many years ago, which would be easy to implement, but this suggestion seems to have been ignored.


See this post from 2017:
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=391369#Post391369

There is a concept video here that includes how the progress bar might work. This was produced before the new layout was available.

The problem with current implementation, that even if it has a clear indicator, it's too condensed and will not focus-follow the reference point. Here is what I mean:

In linear setting, navigator slider would sync to the cursor, making it (cursor) the focused reference point and by moving the navigator slider you would control your cursor through the project (like a puppet) much more efficiently than scrolling through the project. You stop slider, cursor stops making it a new focal point and playback marker.

In Chord view it should follow the outline (selection) of the measure. With current implementation it will only display a single cell on click, then you blindly poke at the thing again, hoping to get somewhere close to where you imagine it correlates to.

I think the Chords Timeline work great, but I would like to see perhaps, text to show 1 verse, 2,verse, etc... as well as where you have some kind of action, like Fills, Push/Hold, etc...
Maybe R1, R2, R3 for the Repeat signs, and a "F", "P", "H" and for more than 1 action in a bar "$" (used a dollar sign, could be whatever works best).

I can easily zero in on a bar in my song, if needed.



Robert

Rustyspoon#, Your clarification makes perfect sense and I understand your suggestion much better. Thanks for taking time to respond and clarify. I appreciate your courtesy very much.

I think robertw's idea to extend the timeline or navigator to full screen width is a winner. Full screen width would certainly enhance the Minimal Screen Mode. What I don't understand in robertw's mock-up is how multiple choruses will be addressed. BiaB is fairly unique in using choruses and codas in song presentation instead of a linear song presentation like a DAW.

AudioTrack's 2017 concept video presented many good ideas and received many positive comments. Hard to believe the video was presented that many years ago. Musocity has also been suggesting GUI changes for years. It appears Simon hears the choir.

I believe a timeline fulfills two functions, (1) clearly identify where the cursor resides in a song project and (2) provide an easy way to navigate within a song project. Can anyone think of any other function(s) a timeline performs?

I have to say I liked what the video posted by Musocity had to say.
There are some good (IMHO) end-user observations about what works well and what works less well.


I think Reaper pretty much started with an intent to make the GUI highly configurable and it's much easier to do so that way than in retrospect.

The repeat's are your choruses,
From what I'm seeing, In the chords view, I have the song wrapped (Showing the repletes) but the timeline has everything unfolded, from start to finish.

Just take a sing that is wrapped and in the chords view. Now randomly select a bar through the Chord sheet and you will see the song timeline move as well.
Now if you select on the timeline, your repeat color (Mine is blue), and go through each blue, you will see it jumping to different locations.
I did this and can see that the timeline is UN-folded.
I would just like to see more that what it currently has. Having some kind of indicator of what part of the song I'm in would help.

Robert

Also, understand that's his point of view (He has a website, and this and other videos he makes, is more than letting people know how Reaper has evolved, it's also for $$$)

I would like to keep this on topic about BiaB and PGM's programs. To me it's not about how we should make BiaB more like "XXXDAW"


Now I also, believe that when people ask for more features, and others say they do not want more DAW features. They are wrong.

Why, what is a DAW, it's a Digital Audio Workstation. That what BiaB is!

Like I'm a doctor, you ask what kind?
So... I have a DAW, you ask what kind?

Robert

No, current suggestion (and current implementation) is not a "winner" unless behavior of cursor and scrolling is changed.
See video. The key differences between a sliding navigator and current implementation. Lets be clear of what it does and how it can be done differently for it to become a true navigator.

No robertw. Unfortunately your analogy is wrong. While there are many specialized doctors, there are not that many different types of DAW.

Per the PG Music +++ "What Is Band-in-a-Box" +++ videos and the PG Music +++
homepage +++ Band-in-a-Box is a song arrangement tool.

Rustyspoon#, Thanks for taking time to make the video above. I agree that the cursor should follow where you click in the timeline and the window should center on the cursor position. Sometimes a video is worth a thousand words.

@Jim Fogle,

By saying that BiaB is a DAW, It's because BiaB is working with digital Audio and when you work with digital audio your working in a DAW.
Their area few types of DAW's.

FL (Fruit Loops), is primarily a Looping program, Other DAW's focused on creating Synths or whatever.
BiaB does is a song arrangement DAW

@Rustyspoon# I agree that to needs to follow in the other windows, that's where some constancy is needed, and yes "a video is worth a thousand words"

Thanks,

Robert

"By saying that BiaB is a DAW, It's because BiaB is working with digital Audio and when you work with digital audio your working in a DAW." Yep. I agree.

General MIDI has seven drum kits; standard, room, power, electric, rap, jazz and brush.

Please set up the Piano Roll window so the keyboard displays the drum kit sound name associated with each key of the Pitch Selector keyboard. Presently the Pitch Selector keyboard displays note names such as C3, C4 or C5. As indicated in PG Music's +++ General Music Instruments and Drum Map Lists tutorial +++ PG Music also sometimes uses note numbers such as 60, 61 or 62. However the user still must use a cross reference list or memorize what note numbers are associated with each drum sound.

Argument is resolved! great!
Lets focus on the meat please.

Anybody liked my wish idea for the bar settings? If not, how would you do it differently?

Another perfect candidate for panel in my view is Chord settings. Specifically Rests, Shots, Holds and Pushes.
Currently there are two methods:
1) Typing in Chord cell in chord view, that could look something like: D7..d,p,u1,u3,u4,u7,u9,u12,u16,u19,u23 - which is just absurd as with one mistake you could be retyping ~40 characters
2)Chord options - I find that mixed legacy and a separate drop down for utility tracks are not intuitive or consistent.

Any ideas?