PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Rules of GUI design that is. Not that I am totally against unique design, but it seems like they really go out of there way to use funny menus and weird windows in both mac and PC software. I just downloaded the most recent OS X ASB controller software and again they have avoided the stock apple interface guidelines. Why would a company go so out of it's way to make things different .. for the sake of? I've never understood the odd-ness of CW's software design since ver 3.1. Why not use native platform interface guidlines? Make it seemless for platform users.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hujib on 2005-12-30 02:09 ]</font>

Ditto!
I am a graphic designer. The new Creamware's corporate image is a lot better than the old one, nice new web site. But the Scope interface is totally "weird" and "heavy"...
I wish a Win/OSX standard interface integrated with i.e. Cubase SX, etc.
Something like UAD, PoCo or other professional audio DSP measurement PCI interfaces.
The XTC-VST bug could be fixed in this manner (actually we cannot put numerical values via keyboard in the plugin text-value fields!)
And the interface, in XTC, disappeares ever under the Cubase SX interface...
Just a dream...

I totally agree with both of you... A redesign would be great and needed. Not to mention the few very annoying bugs that would need to be fixed.

I'm still hoping for :
*a front xtc mixer with insertable plugs and fx send ;
*midi ctrler bug fixed (no switches get remembered except in Minimax and profit 5 !! )
*integration of the host midi clock in xtc ;
numerical values with the keypad fixed ;
gui of the plugins not disappearing under the host window ;
*a standardized gui with (ie) patch names (only Profit 5 and B2003 have patch name AFAIR); Actually a real vst architecture compliance.
*a lower minimum latency ;

One can dream and at the eve of 2006, it's the best time to formulate a wish.

I often use Remote Desktop Sharing to control my main computer with my laptop - and one thing I have noticed that is a bit annoying is that the Creamware interface doesn't tranlate well through Remote Desktop Sharing. It the only program that doesn't seem to redraw correctly when using Remote Desktop (no other program I have ever used has had any problems at all). So, it must having something to do with the graphics used in SCOPE.

as I stated in my initial post, I'm not against custom interfaces per say... Native insturments does ok with their own interface windows.. but the difference is that they're not buggy and they work. Function then style. I guess I'm more curious as to why they ever wanted to create their own GUI first off.. and now more recently, if they've thought about either rewritting it as a way to fix all the problems or simply use a more standardized interface (platform specific). As far as OS X guidlines go, there is a reason most of the 3rd party lil' apps for OS X are so good interface wise - apple provides an excellent set of guides and standards by which to work - It makes a huge difference. My 2 cents

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hujib on 2005-12-30 07:11 ]</font>

Apple doesn't even follow their own design Guidelines.

Also the current Scope interface dates back to Win9x and MacOS9, and was written to be cross platform at the time.

For Remote Desktop, only the top layer will draw (whatever the topmost plugin is) except for OLD devices, which have more problems. Unfortunately Psy-Q is one of these old devices. It works best to use the LiveBar in this situation, and not have the routing interface up.

Stardust, have you ever heard of software update ???

You know, it's when a manufacturer adapts to a new os, changes whatever....

I like the Scope interface very much and I've even changed my Windows mouse cursors to be the ones from Scope.

It's nice and fast for me, and I haven't had any problems with it. Look great, too.

The only thing that gets slow is the Modular when you have a large window and lots of modules routed, but I don't use Modular that often because I tend towards newer synths with better oscillators (like MiniMax, Moog Modular V, Pentagon, and CEM in Solaris). I'd love the MiniMax oscillators in Modular -- I'd use Modular all the time!!

Shayne

Discussing Scope is a bit like discussing religion - Some people are willing to discuss how it could be improved to support current needs, to others it's simply not open to debate and is seen as "perfect" even though the age, bugs and shortcomings are obvious to everyone.

I like my Scope-setup, and I really hope that Creamware will give me good reasons to invest further in their platform in 2006. I actually don't need more synths at the moment, but bugfixes, gui-improvement and better host integration would be very welcomed and something I would gladly pay money for.

Happy New Year to Creamware and PlanetZ!
Thomas

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: petal on 2005-12-30 10:02 ]</font>

When doing cross-platform hardware/software, a GUI like Scope has is not a bad idea as users will feel at home whether on PC or Mac.

However, there are still some bugs, like not being able to input text or numbers in XTC.
And you could accidentally close the plugin inside the wrapper with the (X).

Making XTC platform-dependant would perhaps be the sollution, allthough the graphics are as they are, you could disable the close-function in the wrapper.

I would prefer making music now rather,
cheers

And such is the right spirit!

That is thankfully 100% possible.

But I think these issues are more interesting to they who work with other peoples music.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2005-12-30 11:40 ]</font>

On 2005-12-30 02:08, Hujib wrote:
Why would a company go so out of it's way to make things different .. for the sake of?

For cross-platform support. This way you don't have to write the UI code for Mac and Win separately.

Hey Stardust, you really sound like the voice of reason and logic (and a part of me knows you're right) but I don't want to hear that man... Let's hope a bit !

To all the Planet Zeeders ; Have a very nice end of year (not long) and a deligthful beginning of new year.

there's some developement left there.....

When developing a cross-platform application, the tools (or development library) you use often force you into a lowest-common-denominator approach. To avoid over-complexity, the tools tend to offer things only that all the target platforms can support. And since the different platforms rarely do all the menus, and the various widgets and UI components the same way, it ends up getting pretty ugly.

It's often pretty obvious when you're using an application that was written using cross-platform tools like wxWindows/etc.

So Creamware chose to use the cross-platform tools in a different way - rather than trying to use the abstractions for the various UI widgets, etc, they just use the low-level graphics support, and draw all their own widgets/menus/etc.

I agree, from the user's POV, this can be frustrating sometimes, as it doesn't conform to the platform user interface standards. But from CW's POV, it obviously makes their maintenance easier, as they don't have to maintain compatibility or follow trends in the platform UI standards.

So, as a user, I totally agree with the original post here- I'd like it if Scope was more consistent with all my other apps. But, as a software developer, I can understand why CW did it this way...

Cheers,
-John

That's right John
But, If CWA ever will support OSX, I've read on planetz that the software just has to follow the platform GUI rules...and I hope this is true