:: Collect feedback from the comments section Here is how I intend to follow up this thread in a few weeks: The mixer is something I think we all feel strongly about and this initial proposal will need to be changed multiple times before we reach a fully fleshed-out version. The idea behind this post is for users to be able to point out gaps in the design, while also making requests for alterations. In order to keep this discussion focused, I have removed other aspects of the new design from my mockups and kept the focus squarely on the mixer. This was a great suggestion and - in addition to some of the principles I just mentioned - has helped to inform the V1 design proposed below. One of the suggestions that MaBlo made was to combine aspects of the 'Synthesiser' (where SoundFonts are selected and various other effects are located) with the mixer, so the user can access all audio output options from one place. In a recent post on this forum, MaBlo, who spent a lot of time proposing a new high-level UX for MuseScore 4. it isn't the nicest looking thing to look at either, is it? I seem to recall once comparing it to a late 90's Flash game on. ![]() Another issue with it is that it does not co-exist well in the same panel as the inspector. One of the most common complaints is how much space it takes up compared to the mixer from MuseScore 2. :: The ability to edit precise values, such as velocity and dynamics, should be more exposed, more powerful and easier to useįor the purpose of keeping the discussion focused, I'm going to talk about just one improvement that touches on the first two of these issues: the mixer.Įven in its current state, the mixer is an interface element that users have repeatedly asked us to improve. :: The interface should be made more flexible to support each user's unique workflow :: Choosing sounds (whether VST or SoundFont) should be fast and simple Here are some principles I have in mind when designing the ideal interface: Since we are currently at the early stages of figuring out how this should work from a technical point of view, the purpose of this post is to focus on the second point: when we do have vastly improved audio capability, how could we best expose this to the user to allow them to take advantage of it? Or to put it another way, what is the goal we want to reach? Here are two things we are planning in order to support this request: Higher quality (or 'more realistic') audio playback has topped all our polls and surveys over the last year. In this first post, I'm going to focus on what is needed from a design point of view to facilitate a new audio engine. In addition, we would like to make comprehensive adjustments to the interface to include things that have been widely requested by our users over the last two years. We've decided to do this because there are certain aspects of the existing system that are in need of an overhaul: most notably, the audio engine. First off, if you don't already know (because it's been spoken about quite a bit in the main development group chat), we're now committed to making MuseScore 4. As we continue to work through our development and design roadmap and I'll be making sure to let you know how things are progressing. ![]() ![]() It's been a lot of work but we've now landed on a solid agreement and I'm going to be publishing our plans over the coming weeks and months. It's been a few months since I last communicated anything about our development plan and it feels like the right time to begin getting back in touch.īehind the scenes, we've been doing a lot of haggling, organising and pitching to figure out what our next moves for MuseScore should be.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |