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

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