one improvement could be greying out those options which are not possible in the current use case. i suspect that some crashes just result from not allowed operations.

>... It's not so much a "shock" as the need to relearn products people have been using effectively for over a decade
>... My customers mostly turn it off

vice versa, new potential customers are turned off because of the outdated GUI design. It's the question what you familar with. I think BIAB is so successful because of its content not because of its GUI. At the moment there is no other product which can compared with BIAB (GuitarPro is very much limited to guitar as instrument). Supposed there would be one with a more modern GUI design then I will go for it. There are some reviews out there where other people also complain about the GUI. I am not talking about the veterans who used BIAB over many years.

The problem is that PG music keeps adding many new features without changing much the GUI over the years. each GUI design started out with certain key concept. When you keep adding new feature without changing the GUI you will end up with a mismatch. For the veterans each new release means only a incremental learning process because they work with the product in such a long time. However, for newcomers this GUI is certainly not very intuitive and attractive.

Dockable toolbars and tabbed windows would not go amiss. Those who want to stay with the 'Classic' look still could while others could customise the layout to their hearts' content

BiaB UI improvement project can be piecemeal basis such as option to set main window size (instead of currently grabbing the whole screen) and dockable toolbars, or go the whole way to re-look at how PG and team would have program BiaB if they are to start today. Fresh start might need a lot of resources, new skills and open mindsets, but I think this would benefits everyone in the long term.

For starter, to replace the current Practice Window and clean up the long list under the menu item Window, BiaB New Gen has a re-organised new main control panel /dashboard / switchboard with tabbed buttons to switch between different workspaces/widgets/tools/lessons/makers/builders/etc.

Secondly, Workspaces or Windows like Chord Sheet, Notation, Leadsheet or Piano Roll can all be open simultaneously (should there be a need for this). Hence BiaB NG is now a fully multi-threaded program.

Hoping that the "Future Looks Bright" for BiaB NG

>>umm, I think you missed my reference
>> ...I agree, there is significant room for improvement in the BIAB UI

yeah, right. sorry

>>> one improvement could be greying out those options which are not possible in the current use case. i suspect that some crashes just result from not allowed operations.

For example?

one which immediately comes into my mind is pressing the panic button during playback could lead to a crash.

Greying out the panic button during playback??

That is when panic is used most, and it is definitely allowed during playback.
I have never seen the panic button crash BB or a PC. If it does, you deselect the menu option "Panic also resets DXi", because maybe your DXi/BB combination is crashing when reset.

If they made no more upgrades for a while except more real tracks, a better way to enter notes, and lastly a 4 output midi port setup where you could use up to 4 synths, I would be happy a clam!

To overcome the issue with so many different types of users, you generally spend a bit of time developing "user personas," which are generalized stand-ins for each type of user. "Jimmy Jukebox" uses the program differently than "Carl Composer," who is different than "Larry Longtime." You need to understand each user very well, and develop new functionality keeping each one in mind. Using this methodology, and a bit of lightweight usability testing, it is quite possible to develop a new user interface that meets user needs without alienating one segment or another.

The Development of RealBand is clearly designed to remove the "Carl Composer" from BiaB into a new area where this kind of user will be happier. That immensely simplifies the task of making BiaB work better for the rest of the users who aren't composers.

I still want to see that upgrade that Peter mentioned, the one where StylePicker gets a makeover. In my mind, StypePicker is the #1 issue with BiaB, and it will get more important as more Styles, RealTracks, and RealDrums are created.

I tend to go in the other direction, which is to have floating windows, rather than everything inside the main window. I use Digital Performer on my mac, and it allows me both - tabbed and float. The only way to go (as far as I'm concerned) when using dual monitors.

Having said that, I think Bnb is functionally great as is. Anything that distracts the developers from "real" work, should be avoided. Spending time on UI candy should not take time from what Bnb is best known for.

Chuck

I absolutely love all PG products and they are so reasonably priced. I suspect most of the money goes into improving the functionality of the product rather than the look.
I always have the feeling that BIAB is one of the musical world's best kept secrets and I think the GUI is partly responsible. Those who go for flashy looks may well be put off after just one glance and maybe longtime users like it that way, a bit like an old boys club.
However, I personally think it's time for a make-over, nothing too drastic, but something a little more sophisticated. Many softwares have user created 'skins' which are shared via the forums. Is BIAB not adaptable to that?
I hope so because I think that the wonderful contribution that the Gannon's have made to really authentic song-based music making needs to be known by all, right down to the hip-hoppers and the beat makers on the street, and these days - image counts!

Anyway, whatever happens with the GUI.... go you Gannon's, go!

CD

One possible big reason for BIAB to keep its classic aka legacy looks could be the very super low PC requirement.
While BIAB web page mentioned a fairly up-to-date PC hardware required, the minimum OS preferred is Windows 98 on at least 256MB available RAM. This could limit the choice of programming tools to write BIAB.

IMHO there are hardly anyone still using 10 year old OS to run current new BIAB. Old CPU and bus speed would stutter just to play back melody.

I would suggest that for new release of BIAB, the minimum required is a 5 year old PC, i.e. XP and 512MB ( and the equivalent in Apple OS).

As a relatively new user of BIAB and as a retired Microsoft software development engineer and program manager, here's my $.02 on what BIAB needs to do.

The first problem goes deeper than the GUI and has been mentioned in several posts. BIAB is used for many different purposes. In many cases, like mine, it's used as a boot-up starter to get some tracks laid out and imported into a more advanced DAW where you can do what you need to with them and not have to deal with the inherent limitations of BIAB. Other people tend to use it as a learning tool, or as a back-up band for practicing...the list probably goes on.

In the world I come from we referred to these as 'user scenarios' and they can often be pretty diverse. I think I saw an earlier post that referred to different personalities, and I think that shows some promise. In other words, a way in which you could have presets (a term many recording musicians are familiar with) the arranges the interface so that the most used functions are easily available and arranged for quick use. Likewise, the ability to define these user interface presets would allow a user to customize the layout to their liking. The downside to this: Yet another level of complexity added to an already overly-complex program

That being said, I still have to say that BIAB's biggest issue is NOT the GUI, but it's inability to really define itself as a program so that it makes sense to the typical user. In trying to be everything to everybody it's become a jack of all trades and master of none. It doesn't help that BIAB uses it's own 'alien' vernacular that isn't even close to what musicians use in real life. Who refers to an entire song as a 'chorus?' We use the terms verse, chorus, bridge, intro, outtro or ending. In my opinion the most serious flaw in BIAB is not it's GUI, but it's SERIOUS deficiencies in arranging (in BIAB-speak = frame) a song. What makes this such a serious flaw is that arranging a song is the most important part of creating a song.

The only hope I see for this program to graduate into some form of professional tool is a serious reconstruction effort from the ground up. And for that, you have to start with a vision of what you want your end product to be. Is it a song construction program? Is it a live backup track player? Is it a learning tool? If you can't define the end game you can't get there.


Personally, I think BIAB needs to be a core set of functionality around song construction, with add-in elements that allow you to make it function specifically to your needs. The core set of functionality needs to be a simple, straight-forwared song-layout and arrangement product, that functions both in a stand-alone mode or as a VSTi plug-in to professional DAW's. That would be more consistent with the market they are in. In stand-alone mode they could allow for the other uses through personality presets or whatever. But ultimately they need to have a much stronger product definition, and a much stronger set of song construction and arrangment features that operate in the domain of the user and industry vernacular.

Sorry for being so long-winded on my first post, but I really had to get this out of my system.

DD

Whether Jazz, Classical, Country or what have you, BIAB actually labels the Chorus correctly.

--Mac

I'm sure that's a great consolation to the thousands of users and customers they confuse with it...

DD

Confusion is solved by study and learning.

I've been asking for improved/updated GUI for years.

Although BIAB is a wonderful program, it get's dissed right from the start at major studios because of its cartoonish Windows 3.1 look!

First of all, there is WAY to much going on in the default screen.

Colors really don't make sense.

Why do we need rows of keys, 88 would be fine.

As Peter pointed out, it is important to have the OPTION to do things different ways. But my point is, why not make it an OPTION to have ONLY what you need on the screen?

PLEASE look at Garageband or Logic or Sibelius, they all have a very streamlined pro look.

While I'm on my soapbox, PLEASE update the notation! Yes, it does look good, but It would not take much more truly have a pro look. And the ability to enter notes as in Finale or Sibelius. The grid thing is just way too frustrating and time wasting.

Again, my comments are nitpicking, but thats what we need to keep BIAB on the cutting edge, and to get MORE pro studios and musicians to see its worth!!
Ed

DunedinDragon
i feel compelled to comment ..
(as also a seasoned retired puter bloke like your good self)..
on some of your comments.

application developers, as well you know,
are often limited by the underlying hardware technology at any point in time as well
as the development tools available and limitations of the OS itself.
so i'm gonna turn your comments around.
its not exactly easy developing music apps in the win environment imho.
ive looked at the win audio n midi programmer api's for example because once
years back i was getting frustrated with music software not doing what i wanted.
and i was at one point very seriously thinking bout putting a team together
of seasoned blokes to build a bonzo music app.
but when i looked at the those api's frankly i felt they were overly
complex and not easy to use.
which is why i laud the pg developers that they could bring to market and build a large
user base. initially around biab and then follow on products.
i'm sure Mr Gannon and team had many hair pulling moments n hair going grey dealing
with various technical issues.
its intersting to note in many respects biab is unique in the market.
i bet because seasoned developers would realise the technical challenges involved.

then i looked at the underlying OS.
its purpose originally was to be a general purpose OS..correct ??
ideally for music apps a proper real time OS imho should be de rigeur.
but that is not the case , so programmers of various daw software have had to
resort to various "tricks".
for example to create the "illusion" of things happening in real time playback
for example..
for the end user...
reading time slices for mixing into main memory before they are needed.
ie "look ahead" techniques.
seek time and limitations of disk drive technology
also play their part, as well as memory speed and various other factors.
for example one problem with high level api's is time to execute at the kernel level in the OS
itself. wouldnt you agree ??

in summary with all due respect you cant lay all the blame with
application developers like pg.
they are limited by forces outside their control often.
as well you know mate. a developer can only do so much and is often faced with
changeing OS versions, changeing api's, changes in underlying pc hardware architecture,
etc etc. this constant change of underlying platform plus trying
to keep a diverse user base happy represents a major challenge to even the
most seasoned "been round the block many times" developer.

now lets turn to the gui itself.
on this one imho pg are on a hiding to nothing imho.
ive used some of the flashy gui's in music daw software n fancy shmancy stuff.
as well you know, there is overhead with every bit of source code.
more features..result in more source code.
and frankly some of the new fancy gui's can be problematic on
earlier clunky pc's with old OS versions.
what i perceive is good old pg have tried to make it so the products will
not only work on the latest uber power pc's but also older pc's because
not everyone can afford a new i7 with all the bells n whistles.
the other problem is if pg redesign the gui..lots of long time users
might not like it cos they are used to it.
ah ah !! i hear some people say. so offer an option..new style and old style.
heck lets even let the user configure the gui anyway their hearts desire.
why not go the whole hog and include a gui generator just like one might find in
a programmers compiler.
BUT THAT POSES ANOTHER PROBLEM.
more source code and more bloat being but one problem.
and more maintenance of source code.
as i said pg are on a hiding to nothing.
this is one of the problems one encounters as a developer trying to keep
as many people in the world happy as possible.
ive been there done that with user bases myself many times in the past.
and the conclusion i came up with is ..
you can never keep everyone happy.

dont even get me started on programming on the pc mate, and the fact if one uses
cetain C++ compilers one has to deal with loverly big run times.
why werent the compilers designed to create stand alone executables ??
instead of needing big run times ??
(eg like purebasic.com with in line assembler).
someone can correct me if i'm wrong but its my understanding pg used
borland compilers in the past because with those no big run time
was needed. a logical choice imho at the time.

in summary your post is critical of certain pg aspects..
but in many respects dont you think many of those aspects
are a result of design and programmer tool decisions made way back in the development of win
itself ?? some people like the mac os. me i'm this way and that.
i like small elegant real time OS's like menuetos.org.
(give it a gander sometime.but no music software for it)
and feel that music software developers lives could have been made
a whole lot easier over the years with a proper elegant small OS
dedicated to the music creation vertical market with easy to use
development tools and of course most importantly a extremely fast low latency os kernel
relating to audio applications .

i just find it amusing your critiqueing a product that runs on the environment that you
once worked in. an environment itself that some might say is not perfect.
and which created lots of the tools devs work with on a daily basis.


just my 2 cents n wishing you only the best.

Hi

One thing i like about BIAB is the Humour that it sparks of in musicians, keep it up Peter we need much more in this humourless world and if you change anything it will only sadden us BIAB fanatics, they say a good laugh a day is worth more then any pills and most days their is something to chuckel at(like my spelling and grammer)


regards Dave Hoskins

GUI SCHME-UI, i just want to use the software to make music. It is not a graphic program, it is a music creation tool, I don't need my hammer to sparkle or shine just drive nails!!!

I don't need my music software to look like the console of a spaceship, i need it to make music. Every forum i go on people praddle on about GUI updates, i have seen it on PG, Cakewalk, Reaper, you name it, same old arguement. What difference does it make, just use the hammer. Everyone wants to change the program to meet there personal needs, one wants to build backing tracks, the other wants to practice songs, others want to do other things. Funny but last time i checked BIAB does all of these, and a ton of folks around the world use it as such.

Someone earlier said look at Sebilus, or Logic, or Freakin Garageband, heck those three combined do not do the things BIAB does, They are each one separate program, Sebilus is a notation software, logic a nice DAW, and Garageband os some sort of hybrid looping DAW, kind like a cheap version of AcidPro with built in loops. All do a nice job, BIAB does most of that, except the full on DAW recording, which can be done in PT or RB.

If you want added features or targeted refinement great, but why ask the programer to funnel the program just for you. If you do not like the program just because of the GUI use something else. Or get a sparkling hammer to driver your nails.

I'm very much in favour of decluttering, dockable toolbars, more scroll options, better menus and colour co-ordination etc. The melodist and soloist screens are good cases in point. These are really difficult to look at and could have clearer headings leading your eye into different groups of functions.

The point about BIAB's limited arrangement functions being more important then the GUI is well made. The decision to go down the route of audio realism disguises the lack of development in the program's core midi functionality.

For example a lot could be done to improve the style editor including
..longer pattern sequences (why only two bars). Its not only in modal jazz tunes that musicians think in these longer sequences.
..more than one dedicated pattern chain
..global note mapping for altering voicings
..better and more varied chord masks
..abilty to determine what scales the chords are embellished by

Chord options could have
...a funtion to determine the direction (up or down) of the outer voices (bass and top note of chord) in relation to the previous chord.
...An option to include the alternate bass note in the piano voicing as is available in other auto accompaniment programs.

The option to allow/disallow embellishments in settings for this song should actually work and not be overriden by the command in the style editor.

Realism issues could be addressed by upping the resolution of the midi, allowing 8th resolution chords shots and holds that actually sound as 8ths.

i haven't even begun to mention the everyday commands such as the (in)ability to cut and paste on the chord sheet!! ... come on guys!! the lack of multiple undos. the inability to drag more than one note to a new location in the style maker......


These are just a few of the things BIAB could and should focus on imo.

After all just how many real tracks and real drums can you come out with at any one time relative to all the styles that exist in midi?


Regards


Alan

There's some simple things that could be done to improve the UI of the program even if you're not going to completely change it.
A good example is dialogs like this (I don't have BIAB 2010 but I'm assuming the dialog hasn't changed)
http://www.pgmusic.com/images/bb2007_screenshot4.gif

The layout is amateurish.
Now I know there's going to be a lot of long-term users that jump to the defence of BIAB but please understand this is an attempt to help pgmusic improve their product.
There's good reasons to have a layout that is well-aligned, it actually makes the dialog easier to read/use, this is a well established principle in professional software design. A simple analogy is the use of text alignment in newspapers and books which aids in readability.
The UI in BIAB has actually been used in computer software books as examples of how NOT to design dialogs, I think this is a sad state of affairs for pgmusic and what's worse is the small amount of time it would take to correct these sorts of things shows a lack of pride and professionalism at pgmusic.

http://www.amazon.com/GUI-Bloopers-Devel...6387&sr=1-2

"Gui Bloopers" by Jeff Johnson

I read that book ten years ago.

Anything else you can cite, particularly one that is current?

I thought he made a good point also, and he did back up his claim with a cited reference.

But I still think he went over the line with that last personal attack.

"lack of pride and professionalism"

He was doin' just fine up to the end.

There's no need to take it to down to that level like that.


--Mac

Hi, Lawrie -

Does this help? Look at the bottom left.

G'day John,
thanks mate, that's it. My problem was I didn't know I needed and thus couldn't find how to get to the:
"Assign RealTracks to Track" dialogue. Even after you showed me the dialogue (above) I still had trouble 'cos it's called:
"Select and Generate RealTrack..." in the context menu, and seems to be only accessible from the context menu. That in itself isn't so bad, but...

While I'm happy to admit some of this is pure ignorance on my part, surely the context menu option and the resultant dialogue title could match? Or am I just being plain thick?

Then, you do get into the dialogue, select a style and where's the OK button? Huh? What the? Ok I'll just close it and see what happens - Oh, whaddya know, that did it. It should have an OK button. Now that I know there'll be no more confusion, but it cost me unnecessary time before I gave up and closed the dialogue, only to have it do what I was looking for... This is an unfriendly dialogue. It should have a cancel button too

There is no doubt in my mind that BIAB and RB are amazingly powerful and versatile products, and I'm happy to concede that power brings, of necessity, complexity. But there is no need to add to the complexity by having inconsistencies and non compliance with standards in the UI.

E.G in my previous missive I noted that access to style selection in RB is by clicking in the style name field - in BIAB there is a button to open the selection dialogue - why the difference? They both should have buttons for that task - that would be consistent with the CUA standard...

/grumble

<edit> corrections and changes in italics.

Hi, Lawrie -

Okay, I'm not defending the choices made about the UI, but here's my take on it.

RB's roots are from PowerTracks, not BIAB and have some BIAB features (added fairly recently).

For style selection, you can also click on the style name field in BIAB, and you can get into the style selection dialog there (although you get a menu first in BIAB; in RB you go right into it). So in that sense, they're not so different. But of course you have to know to do it that way. Buttons would probably be better. But they do share a common way of accessing the style selection dialog, just not the one that you intuitively expect.

Fair and constructive criticism of the program is welcome here, and can even garner support and cause positive change.

Exaggerated criticism, and making it appear someone said something they did not, will indeed get jumped on, as it should.

I accept your apology about the exaggeration.

Would we lose BiaB's very nice standalone ".exe" configuration that allows us to delete its folder or copy overtop for upgrades without losing anything by development moving to these "better" GUI tools.

In a lot of cases, I'm afraid that may be the case.

Just something else to add to the design decision table's list of inputs.


--Mac

an easy way around the gui discussion would be to use "themes" whereby you can pick the one that you like. I know that you can customise the colors in biab, but a few built in themes wouldn't go amiss.

Paddy

Wait a minute Matt. Do you in turn apologize to jr335 and the rest of us for maintaining and propagating the wretched GUI cited in GUI Bloopers? Just asking...

I think that if any apology is due here, it should come from jr335, who typed an unwarranted personal attack concerning the pgmusic development staff.

"a lack of pride and professionalism at pgmusic"

Not from Matt, certainly.


--Mac

"it would be great if you can redesign the GUI. In this state it looks old-fashionned, more like a random collection of functions and is therefore not very productive.

There are great GUI designs out there (Cubase, ...) which you could imitate.
"

This goes way back (2008), users come in, see the problems, tell the truth to make it better, get attacked, give up and leave.
Where has it left the software ? stuck in the past !
It's an ingrained culture that has blocked the software from being ahead of the rest.
Far canal, I can see that clearly from 5,000 miles away !

GUI allow Customization of layout and SKINS
for the old users set in their ways and pg, scared change will loose the old users here and chapter 11:
Options > Skins > Classic Skin (Lots of Big Colorful Buttons with Names)
for the rest of the world that don't need big bitmaps, any Moveable Layout/Skin you like for 2017 !

But hey don't come hassling me get on over to the Reaper forum and put up the DOS BLOCKS there and get them to go backwards, they will love you for sure.

"Ring out the old
Ring in the new

Ring out the false
Ring in the true"

This is funny that you might think we longtime users haven't commented on the GUI of BIAB before 2008. I can't prove it because you can't search that far back, but many of us were making suggestions long before the current forum software was installed in 2000.

Here's where we are really working from the same page. I've put a big effort into promoting ideas for changes that the UI desperately needs.



I won't pretend. It reeks of legacy DOS and still has some clumsy non-intuitive menus. From the sample concept I prepared, barely a word has been sent in reply from PGM Staff.

There's a time-warp thing happening here, and it's holding the product back.

This is not just my view. I can demonstrate other real-world statements that have been mentioned where sales are jeopardized because new and potential users are simply put off by the appearance.

Sometimes you have to be direct, because being blunt and direct is the best way to be. The product is great, and is being improved all of the time. The single feature that desperately needs attention is the UI.

Fresh new inspiration is seriously needed.

I am one of those longtime and vocal users that want a number of changes in BiaB. I think many of you know what they are

And there has never been a cross word by Mario while making those suggestions. That's what I most admire.

Well, we did get one feature that made it less clumsy (which was a frequent request of mine): we don't have to type chords into a little box that is hard to see, much less harder to find, and not located close to the cell in which we wanted to enter the chord.


I personally don't care if the UI looks dated, per se, but do have issues with things that affect consistency and redundancy:

* if you want to see the Thru or Audio track on the mixer, then you have to extend the mixer down, and now get the ugly grey space between the mixer and the chord grid. Why not be able to see all the tracks in the mixer all the time, as well as the chord grid
* there shouldn't be a static mixer and a different floating mixer; there should be one mixer that is either docked or undocked.
* while there have been some menu improvements, need to do a lot more to remove redundancies. For example, the "File Menu" has "Save Song, "Save Song As...", and "Save Special". And then if you drill into "Save Special", you get (among other things) "Send to SoundCloud.com as .wav", "Send to SoundCloud.com as .wma", "Send to SoundCloud.com as .mp3", "Send to SoundCloud.com as .mp4", "Send to SoundCloud.com as .m4a". Couldn't we just have a single "Send to SoundCloud", and select the file format via a drop down filter box (like you get when you do a "File Open" to decide which kind of file you want to work with)
* we need a common look and feel between all the "pickers" and all the "lists"
* we need to be able to customize toolbars, as well as allow them to be docked or undocked.
* allow the toolbars to use large or small icons (that way, you can get all of them on the screen by using small icons)

Just a few examples, there are many more.

I don't care what the graphic pictures are or the screen layout, but it should be consistent across similar functions. I would think that would not be that difficult to achieve. I'm okay that the BIAB appearance is somewhat unique; so are the other the other major apps, when you get down to it. Sonar's Skylight interface is not like the other DAW interfaces, so different is okay, as far as I'm concerned.

But at lease make things consistent and remove/collapse the redundancies.

He is only a Newbie , how dare he come here criticizing and not being nice, get rid of him !
4 Post, well it must of worked.

"as usually happens around here" Man that is still going on to this very Day !
Just think how good it could of been 8 years later if the words were heeded then.

I think it's all the niceness and denial that keeps something that can be incredible stuck in the past through ignorance.

No wonder these guys leave, taking all of that year in year out for telling the absolute truth and speaking out through shear frustration.

Even Blind Harry could see that.

There needs to be a collective quantum shift in thinking, not tomorrow, not the next day but NOW.

If you still think there is denial or ignorance, then I fear you are missing what many of us have been saying. Most of us have been using niceness, though. Of that we are guilty.

This is a perfect example of programmers adding "features" that are not needed and serve only to impress novices and clutter the interface for everyone! (Sorry if that does not sound "nice"!) We absolutely do NOT need any automated features to send our files to some 3rd-party service that may be out of business next year anyway! But these things get added and then listed as a new feature.

Strongly agree with you John F. One point to clarify, when I mention 'UI' I'm not just referring to 'graphics', I'm discussing the entire User Interface, including menu's, options, functions layout etc.

It's interesting reading back through the entire dialog in this and other similar-topic threads of the statements continually put forward by users just identifying the issues and seeking improvements in the UI.

I've extensively used BIAB since version 7 (that's 18 years), I've written 3rd party software for it, I've actively promoted it between music students and fellow musicians during all that years and I've always said that buying BIAB is one of the best investments that a musician can do for his musical education, if not the best.

But when I've showed BIAB to music students I've always seen the same reaction: they are amazed with what the program can do, but when they start to try learning it, 90% of them just give up because they think it's very complicated and unintuitive. And I must agree with them. That's why I've said for years that the program needs a brand new GUI, from a fresh perspective. Sorry if saying that is not nice, but it's the truth.

PS: And yes, even if it's not the norm here (95% of the people in this forum are just great), I've seen several people here being harassed just because they were (respectfully) criticizing the program, or exposing some bugs, and I've seen some of them leaving the forum just because of that. I myself have been insulted here just for reporting bugs and program limitations that should be obvious for anyone with a minimum of computer experience. Respect and niceness has always two sides.

I wish this was a forum where mature users could report and discuss bugs of their favorite program without being insulted by a small handful of hardcore fans.

Also agree; I was merely presenting a handful of things that to me seemed like low hanging fruit. And that was without the benefit of the UI in front of me (well, I did refer to the user manual a little). I think there's a lot that can be done in all the areas you mentioned that doesn't require a total rewrite, but does require careful attention to making sure features don't break.

And as for me, I'll stay nice (at least I think I am, although on occasion I can get a little sarcastic). And there's that old meme about honey versus vinegar...

Can I have my "Unfavorite Things"? by VideoTrack

Well asked ! keep it up to bring about solid change.

We are planning to improve the top area of the screen, to make the top toolbar area configurable and make a floating mixer that looks the same as the fixed mixer.

Most of the GUI complaints are concerned with that. We welcome all suggestions for the GUI.

[quote=Cerio]I've extensively using BIAB since version 7 (that's 18 years), I've written 3rd party software for it, I've actively promoting it between music students and fellow musicians during all that years and I've always said that buying BIAB is one of the best investments that a musician can do for himself., if not the best.

But when I've showed BIAB to music students I've always seen the same reaction: they are amazed with what the program can do, but when they start to try learning it, 90% of them just give up because they think it's very complicated and unintuitive. And I must agree with them. That's why I've said for years that the program need a brand new GUI, from a fresh perspective. Sorry if saying that is not nice, but it's the truth.

PS: And yes, even if it's not the norm here (95% of the people in this forum are just great), I've seen several people here being harassed just because they were (respectfully) criticizing the program, or exposing some bugs, and I've seen some of them leaving the forum just because of that. I myself have been insulted here just for reporting bugs and program limitations that should be obvious for anyone with a minimum of computer experience. Respect and niceness has always two sides.

I wish this was a forum where mature users could report and discuss bugs of their favorite program without being insulted by a small handful hardcore fans.

To be honest with you Cerio, it could be a language and cultural difference. There have been times when you've come across as demanding, insulting and sarcastic.

DunedinDragon Offline
Newbie

Registered: 06/11/2009
Posts: 6

Why's he gone ?



Same in my experience, good way to keep the 10%, the old users that pg are worried about loosing and loose 90% of potential new customers, brilliant marketing.

"In my case, as long as BIAB works like I need it to, I don't care what it looks like. When I'm performing I'm not looking at my laptop anyway."

Options > Skins > Classic Skin

quote] Same in my experience, good way to keep the 10%, the old users that pg are worried about loosing and loose 90% of potential new customers, brilliant marketing.[/quote]
I believe that PGM will not lose any old users, just gain more new ones. Win-win all the way.

Can't possibly agree more! Provide options that users can decide on. Basic through to Advanced. Everyone's a winner.

Themes, Paddy from Liverpool mentioned that 8 years ago above.



Look also,
Customize menus/toolbars...
Layouts

Well, maybe you're right, there is a language and cultural difference. If at some moment I sounded that way, I apologize, it was never my intention to insult anybody.

I remember when Cakewalk changed its GUI when the X series came out. Lots of complaining and moaning about it. But as soon as they learned it they started to praise it. The workflow was much better. Plus those improves have kept coming right up to the latest Sonar series.

IF the GUI in BiaB changes I'm sure some people will start to complain and moan. But like what happened with Cakewalk if the new GUI improves workflow then they will start to praise it. With every change comes a learning curve but changes can mean improvement.

Well, I am from the USA and I have not interpreted Cerio's comments as "demanding, insulting and sarcastic". Instead, I have seen Cerio's comments as positive and helpful and always pointing out real issues that need addressing. I am sure PG loves their hardcore fans who think they can do no wrong and take real offense when someone dares point out deficiencies. But those fans will not help in moving the product forward and improving it for users old and new!

Nope! A -1 from me.
I like the GUI. Just because its old in design or "different" doesn't mean its no good.
Its particularly good for those with less than perfect vision.
Everything is there - learn to use it.
However, Video Tracks "GUI concept" video should be implemented without delay.
Ian

There is even a touch screen Skin with bigger buttons and sliders, with so many new surface\tablets\hybrid laptops coming out now.

Options > Skins > TouchScreen

In another program I use now and then the menus after a while would only show the regularly used items in the menu until you clicked more.. at the bottom.

or maybe you could make the menus like the older option of showing only the icons you need but still showing the available by clicking more.. at the bottom

or have it in a customize menus, But will that be easy or doable in Delphi ?

Keyboard shortcuts..
But I think all these will need to wait for the new 64bit c++ rewrite version, that will happen someday, otherwise it's just pushing things too much, blood out of a stone, too much pressure for you guys.

Maybe this will modernize the old looking apps and get rid of all that old Windows color out of them and the same old menus, forms, dialogs.. http://www.alphaskins.com/index.php

Pipeline, thanks for the suggestions, and especially the details with the graphics.

Regarding the specifics:

- menu customization. We did a re-org of the menus last year, and in general this has been well received. There are less items on it now, and they are better organized. For example, the 'options' menu screenshot from another program you posted near the top of this thread from another program has 28 menu items, which is more than any menu that we have. Do you think people want custom control of every menu item?

- hot key customization. That looks like a good one, and fairly easy to implement.
- toolbar customization. This is a high priority and we plan to do it. Most people like the existing toolbar, unless they work at a low resolution where it is too big.

A comment about younger people popping up here and then leaving quickly. There are lots of possible reasons for that, not just the GUI. I think the biggest one is the style of music being discussed and who is on this forum.

This forum is populated by old guys and I'm one of them. Simple as that. Old guys talking about old country music. It used to be jazz but these forums haven't been jazz orientated for years now.

It's country, country and more country. If it's not about the music it's about guitars, how to play guitars etc. And not modern country either. Old country. Of course I'm generalizing and speaking of the majority of musical conversations. There are exceptions of course. If it's not country it's folk or big band Crooner or public domain Christmas songs. All stuff that is 40-60 years old or more.

See a pattern here? It's old and more old.

That's the problem with young people popping in briefly and leaving imho. An old looking GUI being talked about by their parents (or grandparents) and referencing ancient music to do it. What 25 year old cares about that? As far as they're concerned it's an old program for old people.

I've brought this up a few times going back 8 years or so. I don't have the answer either because it's very difficult. Someway, somehow Biab needs to create styles for the current, as in RIGHT NOW, era. But how do you create a style for Uptown Funk? Or Drake? Or Galantis? And does anybody here even have a clue who I'm talking about? Hello...Is this thing on??

Here's a list of the Top 40 songs of 2015:

http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-40-most-streamed-songs-of-2015-revealed__13274/

Absolutely NOBODY on this forum has heard of any of these. Absolutely NOBODY on this forum cares either. Yeah I know, there might be one or two of you.

Biab needs to shift direction but how? If they did focus on these modern tunes and artists who would they sell it to? Would I care about that? No. Would all the 60+ year old country pickers? Heck no!

To bring this back around to the GUI, most of the old guys here are fine with it because they know it and are familiar with it. And, the number one biggest thing to old people is THEY DON'T LIKE CHANGE.

I'm a long time marketing guy and that's the problem going forward. The current stuff is great now, we all love most of it but give it another 10 years...

Bob

"To bring this back around to the GUI, most of the old guys here are fine with it because they know it and are familiar with it. And, the number one biggest thing to old people is THEY DON'T LIKE CHANGE."

As Mario mentioned Cakewalk modernized and they got use to it. There were only a few heart attacks, but they left their bodies, went up into the light, got enlightened, the paramedics arrived in the mean time and resuscitated them, bringing them back a lot wiser, loving, compassionate and understanding.

You can keep making it for Older People but they do eventually die off, Cerio was referring to his students 90% give up learning biab finding it too difficult,
That's why THEMES-SKINS was mentioned many times and the REAPER MENU is not about number of items BUT LOOK at the bottom: THEMES !! for young and old alike along with TouchScreen themes for Live use where you don't need all the other stuff just the basics, Big Buttons and Sliders.

I'm trying to make options for young cell phone app/tech savvy AND older users, the 10% and 90% of the population, this way pg will get the lost 90% back and lovin' it.

You know when XP came out how many users switch to the Classic Theme (yes Theme) to make it look and feel like 98/ME ?

CUSTOMIZATION caters for the whole population not just the old customers.

You can't just say:
"Nope! A -1 from me.
I like the GUI. Just because its old in design or "different" doesn't mean its no good."

You have to have empathy for others and say:
"I like the old GUI, would like a skin-theme for it and a modern look skin for my Son, that has good eyes who uses it for Live work on a surface pro touchscreen."

Thanks for the suggestions.

I'm a long time user. I don't particularly care what the GUI looks like as long as BIAB does what I want it to do, provide accompaniment for my solo piano gigs. Just show me where to pick a style, key, tempo and the Play button. Like I said, I don't care what the GUI looks like. I've been using these forums for many years and compared to the number of users here, the number who complain about the GUI are very few. Again I will say that I don't care what the GUI looks like, modern or retro. Ray

Exactly and right now their initials begin with P, C and J although there have been others over the years.

Another thing to remember is this is only the English forum. What do the Japanese formuites think? How about all the Euro forums? The Spanish forums? The Chinese forums? We have no idea what they might think about all of this.

PGM is a world wide company, it's not just us on this one forum.

Bob

Nailed it!

I think this is a bad idea! Just placing a GUI bandaid over the existing GUI does NOT help!

Don't mean to sound negative but I don't like this idea! Allowing/requiring users to design their own GUI will lead to frustration for both users and PG support staff! Whenever I experience software that does this (and they are not that common these days) I simply turn everything on immediately so I don't have to play hunt-the-wumpus with a menu!

"Allowing/requiring users to design their own GUI"
Panic attack, confusion > Options > Skin > Classic.
That's why Reaper was invented, more user control, no nanny and father xmas feeding the chickens at the end of the year.

"I think this is a bad idea! Just placing a GUI bandaid over the existing GUI does NOT help!"
Leave it the win98 color and get onto every other DAW company that has a better looking color gui and ask them wt# are they doing.

As said before I'll just go to Reaper that gives just about total control to the user over just about everything and spend my time creating a script to import sections of recorded wav files that users upload n share with the chord markers in them with BWF bext chunk and acid info.
I think that will be a lot easier and very much appreciated in the Reaper forum.


Hey, I tried, but it's a killer, I can't do it anymore, It's doin' my head in

Sorry it's just way too low, back in a DOS time warp that is perpetuated.

It is where it is because of the very statement below,

bye 1995 hello 2016.

Yeah but Reaper started with a fairly modern GUI and then added skins. Great idea...great implementation! But in my opinion BIAB would need an extensive GUI overhaul before skins would make much sense. Where this becomes a problem is when the underlying issues are not addressed but modern colors are simply added like a veneer!

It would be remiss of me not to remark on some of the comments above.

Recently, I received an email separately from a potential user asking me my thoughts on the program. In the request, he wrote, and I quote, verbatim:
"When I first considered my BIAB purchase last year, the GUI of it was so displeasing to my tastes that I really had to talk myself into overlooking it in order to benefit from the marvelous things this product can do."

I'm trying to be objective rather than subjective. Is that why there are mostly "old guys" using this program? It turns potential customers away because the GUI is stuck in some previous decade?

Re statement: "And, the number one biggest thing to old people is THEY DON'T LIKE CHANGE." Well I have to presume that this is a personal view, 'cause it's certainly not one that I share. Change is inevitable. BiaB has changed continually since its inception. Everything has.

I have been a strong proponent for change to the User Interface for a long time. The reason is that I am passionate about the product, but recognize the limitations and the lost market potential because parts of it are stuck in the past.
The idea of Themes is excellent. Select a 'Stage Presentation', A 'Studio Presentation', an 'Original Presentation' and the user gets the display appearance that they want. Heck, they can even have an 'Old User presentation' option. Get rid of the color and bling, that's old school graphics nowadays. The product doesn't need bling to deliver.

It needs an overhaul, a fresh appearance. It needs to attract a new user base. Old users don't last forever... I know that at PGM must know that also.

Like I mentioned, maybe they can keep the an 'old school' theme just the same as it is now for 'old school' users, but please bring it in line with other modern user interfaces.

I wish they would be prepared to bring in some good modern graphics designers to take a serious look at how the interface can be radically improved. Yes I did user the word 'radically'

Trevor

Bob, I will respectfully disagree with a couple of comments made here.

It doesn't matter if we have heard of those people or groups but it is important to know that others love them and want to imitate them. I for one would welcome them to the forums and listen to some of their music. BiaB users have already increased my music knowledge and enjoyment by their songs posted here. Even if I don't care for some at least I get exposed to them.

BiaB does not, IMHO, need to shift direction but it should include all genres of music, if possible, in both MIDI and RTs. As a fellow old timer we remember when BiaB was all jazz but as you stated country now is the most popular genre posted. If BiaB had not include country styles these musicians would not be posting today and PGMusic would not have sold their products to them. A win-win all around.

I am 70 so I think that I can be classified as an old timer here and I have no problem with change. I learned the new GUI in Sonar and thanks to you I have learned to use the portions of RB when I want to make certain changes to a BiaB file. I am also learning the wind controller and some keyboard. All of these and more can be challenging to an old simple guitarist like me but I accept those challenges.

Also BiaB has incorporated some change when they introduced super MIDI tracks and Sampletank. Now users are asking about MIDI channel selection and how to incorporate other VSTis in their music. PGMusic has responded with jBridge. Questions like these were never asked when BiaB was only GM.
I haven't even mentioned RTs and RDs!

The GUI does need changing. Menus should be revamped. For instance why two print menus?

I agree with you that slick alone is useless but slick with substance works. BiaB has the substance so adding slick would improve the product IMHO.

Peace

My personal opinion is that if a program does what I need it to, I don't really care what it looks like. I'm not looking at the GUI while I'm playing anyway. Ray

Yes Ray, valid points, but respectfully you're not a 'potential new customer' and for your purposes, you don't 'need to look at the GUI', but other people use the product differently. They don't have the depth or breadth of knowledge as some others. They're entering from a different playing field. Maybe they've never played a note. Maybe they want to use BiaB to teach. Maybe they are songwriters who use it for creativeness. Everyone will have a different requirement, and rely on the user interface differently. Your points are perfectly valid. Many users will have different requirements though. A lot of these will rely on the GUI.

Posting on forums is difficult because we can't post a complete story without writing a book and who has time for that?

What I posted is my observations of what's been on the forum and what I see as PGM's reactions to it. My comments about modern music is another observation. It's NOT what I personally would like to see. I've spent the last 20 years basically in management so I see things from a companies point of view rather than simply my own.

My personal thing goes back to the 80's when my parents started wearing those godawful polyester leisure suits with the white belts. I don't know if that ever caught on in OZ but this was the most ridiculous uncool thing I had ever seen and I vowed to never EVER be that guy. 12-15 years ago I had a closet full of these:

Tommy Bahama http://www1.macys.com/shop/product/tommy-bahama-mens-printed-hibiscus-shirt?ID=2822710&CategoryID=21707#fn=FEATURED-BRANDS%3Dtommy-bahama%26sp%3D1%26spc%3D170%26ruleId%3D85%26slotId%3D16%26rdppSegmentId%3DHO%3AST

A few years ago I began to notice the only people wearing these were bald old guys so I donated them all to Goodwill. I will NOT act or look my age but no I don't chase young women, I've been with the same one who's only 3 years younger than me for 26 years now.

I try to keep up with current trends including music. I try to dress appropriately. I observe what I consider to be hipper older folks dress like.

Here's where I'm at personally concerning PGM. I pretty much agree with all these wishlist items. I think P, C and J have good points. My only thing with them is their attitudes and method of posting about it. They seem to think that only by hammering their points again and again will there be any action. Not true.

They keep going on and on about it because they're not seeing change. I've been on this forum for over 10 years now and trust me guys Peter knows all about it. Not just now, he's know about these concerns for years. And, I'm not about to knock him or belittle him or any of that. It's his company, this is his forum, we're all here because of his good graces. He could shut us all down either individually or as a group at any time with zero warning.

Some of you guys here don't remember or were not around when I posted somewhat tongue-in-cheek about the "Awesome Cool Dude" version of Biab and I listed every possible unbelievably awesome and cool thing I could think of. That could be released alongside the current version so all the old guys who don't need it, don't care, don't want it wouldn't have to deal with it.

I've been all over this stuff some of you have been posting about recently for years now. It's called been there, done that. The difference between some of you and me is once Peter commented on these things 4, 6 or 10 years ago I don't make a big deal out of it all over again. He knows and he'll do whatever he thinks is best for HIS company.

Trev, I think your test video of what a new modern GUI should or could look like is absolutely beautiful and I said so at the time you first posted it.

I think PG should do whatever it takes to come up with a 64 bit version just because. Is it really needed? I doubt it but it makes the company look old.

They need to fix or rewrite or whatever it takes to make these programs work with full VST functionality.

They need to completely rewrite the Help files and reorganize all of the menus. I've written about that off and on for years as well. And at one point they did implement a couple of my suggestions and I took that as a small victory.

There's more points I could make, just refer to what I wrote about the book thing...

Bob

Bob, it's clear to me that a few of the newer posters have no clue about the effort we have expended on making suggestions to improve the program. We don't see less of a need for further improvement just because we feel a part of a team that is led by Dr. Gannon and has produced something unique and amazing.

I am dismayed, however, that to remain cool, I need to get rid of my leisure suits.

Things tend to get done when paying customers voice their concerns! And you gotta admit for every one of the few who complain there are at least an equal number who are quick to jump in and say they love the GUI so much they wish it was DOS based!


I've never intended to belittle Peter or his staff and if my comments upset or offended him or his team I apologize!! I am the first to acknowledge how amazing the RealTracks and RealTracks engine are! Peter deserves some kind of lifetime achievement award for this. Seriously! Nothing short of amazing.


And, because you have already complained plenty, newer users who notice the same issues should not voice their concerns?


I agree 100% and I hope PG considers using it as inspiration! As a software dev it is always nice to have fans who sing your praises but IMHO it is far better to have fans who will give you honest feedback and even put in the extra effort to actually demonstrate possible improvements!


Agreed!


Agreed!


Agreed!

So, it seems we agree on almost everything! As a PG customer who pays for my BIAB, upgrades, add-ons, etc. every year, surely that gives me a wee bit of room to suggest improvements in the public forum? (Even if you have already suggested them!)

JJJ, love ya buddy, seriously but what's with all the !!! things?

Just write normally, ok?

Bob

"Normal" is in the eye of the beholder. I wish you would use more of these !!!

It's interesting to note this latest reply from a new independent user where the user states:
"this website seems a bit arcane, unintuitive, and cluttered rather like the GUI of BIAB"

Clearly the user is stating the obvious, well, obvious to me anyway.

Please PG, consider if potential sales are being lost because of this interpretation. Consider if many of the tutorial videos look dated. Consider if potential new customers are dissuaded because of the first impressions (the User Interface).

Please consider a serious re-engineering of the UI. One that really brings it into line with current methods of interface presentation. One that possibly allows 'old users who don't like change' to use it the way they want (no offense, Bob), but opens up potential for new users to be excited, and provides a fresh new modern appearance, and attracts new customers.

Only trying to help.

hello users

I am not a forum user really, but read this thread with interest. As a 35-year young casual but long-time user of biab (long for me, perhaps 7-8 years now) I thought I'd chip in a perspective. I write as someone in the UK, not a formal music student but in touch with a number of people who might use BIAB as students, or otherwise be appropriate audiences.

First, I've been so attached to the program I've used it constantly, if irregularly, that I considered creating one of the 'endorsement' videos people have made. However, I realised for all my basic instinctive enthusiasm for BIAB, I felt I'd end up being tempted to implore PG to do a number of the things raised in this thread. I don't think therefore that I'll go the extent of creating a video, but will instead throw in my reflections here.

Yes, the interface is a huge 'turn-off' even as someone relatively seasoned in using it. Especially so because I come to BIAB only once every often, when I have a specific task that I often end up struggling to figure out (e.g. finding a soloist that sounds appropriate to my tune has taken me hours recently). I'll come back to my instinct for what would help, bearing in mind the needs of the different user groups.

To me, the single most glaring oversight, should PG wish to reorientate at all to a younger or unfamiliar crowd, is to explain why the program exists. While it's clear what it can do (e.g. generate backing tracks), and how is does it (e.g. amazing quality realtracks) it's not necessarily obvious WHY you'd want this particularly, it seems to me - or how in various ways the product might be useful to a keen student.

In other words, I would think the videos and other marketing don't adequately answer the question 'What's the point of this product? How will it easily make me a better guitarist/singer'? Demonstrating exciting realtracks does not achieve this goal. Another way I've heard this put is the 'what's in it for me?' test for product description - I think biab could REALLY benefit from a series of vid tutorials showing off how e.g. a guitarist could strangely turn up to a band rehearsal with a new solo already learned for some chords, or a bunch of new rhythmic ideas. For that matter, given that the prog is much a swiss army knife of assisted practice techniques, I wonder what other inventive ways other users have. Would be great to emphaise the variety and creative possibilities I presume are out there (nb. can't claim I have devised creative/advanced ideas myself, but I do find BIAB very helpful to propose ideas to bandmates for example, and this kind of application would be a far stronger selling point than new features. With due respect, I wonder if new feature videos may be even be rather boring to some new or even existing users).

My background is in publishing, both editing text and graphics, and its interesting to consider how BIAB might be approached were it a book going out to market. I'd picture:

- the text content being scrutinzed for errors and consistency
- the text being scrutinzed for ease of use
- visuals being added that enhance the experience of using the content

In BIAB, as a youngish and mobile phone orientated person, there are whole areas I avoid due to its technical language or presentation. BIAB would come back with a lot of comments from our proofreaders. Take the addition of 'Xtrastyles' in the latest version. My issue is this is not a self-evidently descriptive word. It could mean anything really, and therefore is just an arbritary label, meaning its a missed opportunity to guide the user towards a feature (e.g. 'curated realtrack combinations' would do this, albeit in an excessively wordy way).

Same goes for the way the colours and underlining is used to indicate which instruments are 'real' or MIDI, or whether they have notation. In book editing practice, simple is always preferred, and compared to the standards of iPhone and even android apps, the colours/terminology PG has added over the years actually amount to a kind of foreign dialect of software conventions. The inclusion of odd, non-musical terms in the settings menu (like 'ASIO'/'MME' for example), only further force the user to confront alien techy language; personally I've got lost on the audio settings screen more than once, and it's taken days to establish what influence 'latency' and other gremlins might be having. This, I would suggest hugely detracts from the users basic expectation that they can achieve certain goals simply (e.g. record themself soloing over a backing track). And therefore is the stuff that risks causing people to walk away.

Perhaps it's unkind, but I would describe BIAB's visual presentation as 'terrifying'. BIAB has obviously evolved through many iterations, but like any project without a finite end, it risks obscuring the original and inspired ideas behind the product. With each new year, I think, this becomes a greater risk.

For whatever it is or isn't worth, my (yes, unsolicited) recommendations would be:

(in the following sequence)

1. to consider completely suspending development of new features and commit to delivering BIABs huge existing range of possibilites in the most accessible and direct ways possible.
> This could be part product design, part reinvestment in training videos or help functions (but no referring us to the manual, please)

2. to rationalize the primary applications of the product, and reorganise buttons and menus into hierarcies around very simple and basic uses (e.g. creating a backing track, or printing a tune).

3. to commision user experience testing, and to tackle design informed by this but independent of it

4. to embed 'classic' biab into the new design, perhaps with the use of skins, as has been proposed by others.

5. this may seem rather provocative but I even wonder whether 'band in a box' remains the best name for this product. following the principle of more self-evident language, i'd think 'Realband' is now the more descriptive name, and since that product (the existing realband) is bundled, that could simply become e.g. 'Realband Sequencer'. Of course this may be marketing suicide, and alienate many. I can't really comment on that - am just wondering what title might best incite someone in a music shop to take it down from a shelf to look more closely (or by parallel, look more closely online).

This may have seemed an odd way to endorse this product, but I write this much because I think of BIAB as one of the most imaginative and unique ways individuals at home can improve the ability and enjoyment of music. Thank you if you've made it this far. I don't expect to be on the forum regularly, but hopefully the post will suggest there are at least a number of us semi-devout younger people on board. (*although underpresented in the forum, I wonder if as a group we're simply less proactive in terms of posting online).

many thanks to all involved
Tom

London, UK

Tom, thank you for this fine comment. You should post more often. In fact, although I'm very proud of my contributions over many years as a BIAB beta tester, I would happily yield my spot to you. Your thoughts are constructive and positive, and come from a perspective of experience and admiration as well as youth.

I will only point out that you might be surprised how many of your suggestions we have already made. There are a few newcomers here who don't seem to believe that, but almost everyone here shares your desire to support the company and help the programs improve.

Please stay active and keep posting.

Tom, your objective comments are well articulated and associated with substantial practical reasoning.

It's refreshing to have constructive feedback from less-regular posters, as it demonstrates that the issues are noted and experienced by the broader community.

Thank you again for your constructive comments. Stay around. This level of contribution is well received.

Trevor

Personally, I think there are some things PGMusic NEEEDS to hear from younger new users.
It represents the future growth of the company. Sure there are a lot of us old timers around, and we have voiced many of these concerns previously, but
A. We are fading away over time
B. We are not growing the user base at the rate new younger users would
C. We continue to upgrade each year without the new interface

We are devoted and continue to upgrade, which of course has value, but like I said every year we get older and more of us fade away.

I welcome a new interface, and have tinkered with creating skins for RB simply because I want it to look better. At one point this was encouraged then fell away a bit as very few of us tinkered with it.

I agree that simply updating the interface is worth the trade off of having less new features one given year. It could be done once and make BiaB/RB a more enjoyable experience for many years to come.

thanks Forum, for your welcome. I sense the strength of support for BIAB in these replies alone.

Yes, I'm not exactly surprised to hear these thoughts have been voiced already. Actually I posted partly just to 'let off steam' after a few difficult sessions with the software (but good results in the end!) - but also to voice another 'vote' in favour of the things discussed.

Something else occurred to me after posting yesterday - I was wondering what a rehaul of the interface would really take. Presumably, depending on how ambitious it was, it would be rather fraught to say the least:

a) logically
rethinking priorities in visual design, and the implications of these on other functions

b) logistically
implementing a new design and evaluating components throughout BIAB for consistency with it

c) emotionally
a certain amount of energy required, a certain amount of risk, a certain amount of negotiation and persuasion involved

The above would therefore entail a major project somewhat outside the usual habits established in the upgrade cycle.

> idea: could a kickstarter type campaign be suited to address these requirements? Arugments for it might be:

- funding requirement could be assessed and determined by PG
- those who wish to support BIAB could consider donating:
a) whether just to assist in achieving redesign
b) whether just to re-establish BIAB and invest in its future

- a kickstarter in which PG commissioned this work would also allow them free to continue with their own upgrade cycle or other plans, assuming any developments could be subsumed with a redesign at whatever point in the future.
- kickstarter campaigns, I believe, are self-cancelling (and refunds donors) if money falls short of funding targets. Therefore, this project would be 'non-risk' in the sense that if the target's met it would be executed; otherwise it would be shelved without any lost investment.

I'm 'thinking aloud' in suggesting any of this, so perhaps ignore established upgrade processes PG might be comfortable with or forced to remain with. And perhaps it's been considered already in any case. However it would at least seem to capitalise (ok.. literally) on BIAB's broad and loyal community base - which may be one of its most valuable assets?

thanks -
Tom

Hi, Matt - thank you for this comment, how generous.

Certainly, if possible I would be interested in learning more on how beta testing works.

best wishes
Tom

That idea alone, a kickstarter campaign, would hardly occur to those of us on Medicare!

On occasion, PG Music asks for those interested in being a beta tester to submit a short statement on your musical background and interests. If you send one to me via PM here, I'll pass it along to them. Of course, they might say, Oh No, not another GUI guy...

Here's my quick take on beta testing, though I don't want to go into too much detail here. Beta testing has, for the last few years when we have had one annual release, involved about a week or ten days of high-intensity usage of the upcoming release, reporting whatever didn't work for us. There's lots and lots of downloading huge files and multiple release candidates. We are instructed to use the program as we normally would, and most of us dive into the new features to try those out, too. We listen to the new RealTracks and report if there are errors in the documentation. It's a great and fun job for retirees, though we are not all retired. And then, throughout the year, we get advanced releases prior to the public release updates. Again, we use it normally and report. We also on occasion offer more penetrating comments on topics like the GUI, where those comments will not affect what a prospective customer might see.

really? well glad to offer that thought then

I'm afraid I don't know much about KS, except that I'm aware as you perhaps will be that they *sometimes* seem to dramatically surpass expectations either in how quickly they can amass a following, or in the total contributions they gather. But, of course they've been around for a while now and someone more knowledgeable would be better positioned to outline any caveats that might be important.

I think I would really enjoy getting stuck into the beta testing, it sounds the perfect excuse to dive into BIAB and whatever project is underway. My only concern is that I might not be able to be available at the precise time of releases, or able to give it the comprehensive testing that would be appropriate (ie a week or 10 days at a time). I'm very grateful for you recommending it however. Well, perhaps we'll see BIAB thrive despite our GUI fears and I'll one day get to enlist anyway ...

cheers
Tom

Nice thread with some interesting thoughts expressed.

When Kickstarter was mentioned my first thought was, "Why?" PG Music develops their products themselve. A Kickstarter campain would provide extra funding that could be used to hire developers but is that a route PG Music wants to travel?

Imagine this, five contract developers work for a year under the leadership of Dr. Gannon or a PG Music employee to put together a "new" Band-in-a-Box, RealBand, combination of the two or something completely new and different that we haven't even thought about! The product is released but the development team is gone. PG Music support will have to support legacy products and the new.

Software developers have styles just like musicians, songwriters, authors or any other creative work. Knowing the development team and having the developers available for support questions is a huge asset that will be lost by using outside contractors.

Can PG Music afford to retain the team after the Kickstarter funds are depleted? Who knows, not me.

Thanks for the offer, but we don't want a kickstarter project.

This thread is full of helpful suggestions, much appreciated.

If BIAB were redesigned, or underwent a major facelift, does anyone know how much effort it would take? As someone who knows zip about designing software, my thoughts were: How many people would it take to undertake such a rewrite? What skills do they need? Are they readily available? How long would it take to reach a marketable product? What would it cost to undertake such a project? Maybe it doesn’t get done, because it’s too big of a project for the existing staff.

Hi Larry

Yes, I would be interested in understanding this. Was rather hoping VideoTrack might be in a position to give a rough idea .. ?

Tom

OK, ball's in my court, so here goes:

Well, it's really difficult to state what effort is involved, but let's think about the main two issues and corresponding approaches

1: the User Interface

2: the Menus

What remains constant is the underlying engine driving it all. Very little of that probably needs to change. What needs to change is the interface, with the addition of new presentation layers that then integrate into the existing substrate code.

The menus are programmatically probably not difficult. I think the most tenuous part is establishing a redesigned model that is pragmatic and more realistically categorizes functions, and clears up naming conventions. This is not a criticism, and I have stated that online and offline to Peter himself many times: I fully understand how the program got these problems in the first place - it's because it has evolved and delivered amazing features that could never have been anticipated during its earlier ongoing development. It's because sometimes there was no logical place to put 'this and that' new feature, so we put it 'here and there', and this happened multiple times, and eventually some of the delivered menu functionality at these locations started to make less and less sense.

So it's time to step back and study the structures, probably with the assistance of new, fresh, independent participants who don't automatically know exactly where to go to select a feature, or what 'Force Track to Simple Arrangement : Strings' means, when the track is actually a RealTracks track with Guitar. Get independents to use it and analyze and state clearly what they don't understand.

The User Interface also is not impossible. Presuming (and I'm being simplistic here) there is a reasonable disconnect between things like the button 'Click' events and the 'OnClickEvent' code, other newer buttons could call the same underlying code. These other new button 'click' events could be coming from a new fresh interface (a different 'skin').

Yes, it's easy to just say 'do it', but I know and Peter and his Team knows there are many hidden challenges. Nevertheless, it really has come time to embrace this, even if it requires an ongoing staged implementation.

There has been an indication that work is already being done on the interface.

So to answer the question: How much effort is required? I can't really say as I don't intimately know the code. Days? No. Years? No. A few months would be my guess to deliver something that new and potentially new users could start to be really excited about.

I for one would be thrilled to see changes implemented like I have tried to identify. There would definitely be "No Strings Attached" if they decided to take on some of those ideas.

Hope this assist in some way. I'm really pleased to see this thread get traction and enthusiasm from all parties. It's definitely needed.

Trevor

Brilliant post, Trevor. Especially this part:

Yes, this is the only way to get an unbiased opinion of the GUI IMHO.

hi Trevor - and thanks!



Yes - I think that puts it very precisely. To me, with a very small amount of project management background (even picked up a qualification at one point), this is not unusual ... it's actually absolutely the normal course of any product which doesn't precisely know what it will look like when it's complete. Be it software, a house, a city. Projects, I learned, can be either be executed in 'controlled', or 'uncontrolled' environments. But ultimately 'controlled' ones are better because they work towards peoples interests in defined ways, and therefore are also more profitable.



yes, absolutely. thank you.

One idea I liked was the idea of developing the GUI around different "personas". Although you can broadly state everyone uses Band-in-a-Box differently some common ways of using the program have been noted. Some users develop song structure, some backing tracks, some use the scoring and printing feature, some the Jukebox or Conductor feature while others as a practice tool.

I think it would be useful for PG Music to run two polls. One poll would be to have users list every feature each user can think of. A poll like this would help PG Music understand what features users use enough to list versus all the features that are actually available. I'm sure there maybe questions about if "so and so" is a feature or not but defining what is a feature actually may be part of the problem. After poll 1 has named the features that users use, it would be time to release poll 2.

Poll 2 would be to take the list of features and separate the features into 3, 4, 5 or even 10 "personas" or have a feature be common to all "personas". Each feature could be ranked in importance by the user. This poll will help PG Music understand how each user uses BiaB.

The software the forum uses supports polls. Online outfits like SurveyMonkey will let you set up a poll for free.

PG Music could use use the mailing list they have to send an invitation to participate in each poll.

Just an idea I think is worthy of consideration and discussion.

I guess if I had one wish (in general) it would be for a "Tablet/Touchscreen" friendly "Performance Mode" with functions only pertinent to live playing with something like a Surface Pro.

The number of features required for content-creation/composing/arranging are vast compared to the "pick a tune-pick a key-pick a style/tempo" used live. Also a "favorites" for upper level patches in "Thru" would be great here. Just my $00.02 .. Otherwise, I've been using this so long, I can find pretty much ANYTHING if I don't have to do it in Real Time.

Hi Peter,

I noticed that you kindly responded with a number of 'Thanks' and 'Good Ideas' to 40 or 50 posts in the wishlist. I think you might have accidentally missed this important one, which as a result has now been pushed back in the list 3 pages or so.

I'm just checking to see if you have seen the recent comments on this thread and if you have anything to mention in reply to this one also?

We appreciate your response.

Thanks Peter
Trevor

Peter, just in case you heed Trevor's excellent advice and revisit this thread, I wanted to pull out one particularly good post by a 35-year old BIAB user.

Trevor,

Thanks for posting that video, lots of great ideas in that!

We do plan on addressing the top toolbar and the menus.

hello JohnJohnJohn

just happened to log on and see you post - many thanks for this. is great to see the interest out there and follow the conversation.

cheers
Tom

Good to see the 2 themes Classic & New, I use them both, well done.
This post got over 40,000 views same as Not Buying Another Upgrade Until BIAB is 64 Bit.

Another Chapter here: http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=406619

thanks for sharing this Pipeline, have read with interest.

I think one point that emerges is that the frustrations do not always result from users finding function X (whatever it is) difficult to figure out, but rather that it's the cumulative time involved trying to guess the rationale for various design details. If you see what I mean.

A consequence of this is while the forum is generous in offering help and finding solutions to better understand function X, the original issue remains somewhat unaddressed - namely how long is basically takes to work things out.

This thread spreads over the decades and there are more like it.

As I read through all the years it's the same recurring thing, that's why I keep saying the BB Plugin/Standalone Win/Mac/(Lin) I think will be the new Biab going forward, though you will still have the old Delphi version released at different times for Win/Mac. It could also be used for the Live Arranger version being light weight.
Non Destructive Editing will give better editing control and faster generation than the main Biab app.
Allowing real project time signatures, 2550+ bars, real tempo maps and 48khz 24bit audio.
It can be released at the same time for Win & Mac (not 6 months apart).
Band In A Box Lite® a self contained Plugin or Plugin Standalone.

Let's see what happens less than a few weeks from now, Dec 2022.