Why that UI ?......(analysing)

[RAYMAN]

I see a lot of people looking back at Truespace mainly because of its UI.....
But we get bad comments about that from the Blender forum mainly because its exactly the opposite.
Marcels comment to the work in progress about google search and Rayman search actually made me try to explain something here.
I have used quite a lot of applications and they all suffer from 1 big drawback and that is they are stuffed with functionality.
What might be looking complicated to use different "SMALL" applications really makes it a lot easier to use.
A main reason why many people disliked Version 7 was that it has gone in the same direction as all the other BIG applications
and went tabs and subtabs.....
When you use small applications dedicated to poly modeling and one to nurbs and one to drawing and one to painting
you have different Ui for the different applications but that isnt a drawback you realy need different ui for different tasks...
and those apps area lot smaller and less cluttered everything is in 1 reach
If you have tabs you have a long way to run everytime you are doing something in there and if you want to avoid that
your going the shortcuts way so you have to learn the key shorts like most Blender-people do... something the Ts people hate.....
The people wanted to have more tools for workspace but where do you put those ?
Under tabs and subtabs but isnt that moving Ts into a direction where you could actually use some other X.....

[First Light]

Hi RAYMAN,

In general, I have to strongly disagree. I mean no disrespect---I enjoy your posts. However, I think these weird UIs are more about vanity than anything else. Their programmers (or designers) simply refuse to consider the user's perspective and they go off on their own ego-driven path.

In principle, I agree that some computer programs, by their nature, require unique UI features. No argument there. But this can almost always be accommodated within a familiar UI framework based on the standards of the operating system used.

And I'm not just refering to Blender. I think the trueSpace UI makes things much more difficult than they need to be. But in trueSpace's case, it predates many of our common UI conventions today.

As for the tabbed feature of many UIs today (invented by Adobe), I think it is a great aid. It is logical, easy to comprehend, uses a minimal of screen space and, if fully implemented, allows the user to control which controls are visible and which are not as well as which tools are within the workspace and which are outside of the workspace (such as on a second display).

I challenge anyone to demonstrate why the base design of a goofball UI would not be easier to learn and use if it were instead based on the standard conventions of the operating system that it uses.

Best regards, First Light

[Steinie]

I agree with First Light about the Developer's ego getting in the way of a
standardized UI. Headus UVLayout comes to mind even before trueSpace.
Why must Developers design their own file management UI instead of using Windows
is beyond me.
For me it wasn't the UI that made me like trueSpace. As I modeled I could see the results
happen in real time. To me that was much more important.
For a Professional a standarized UI, shortcuts, and solid tools are much more important then
a glitzy screen.

[marcel]

I try to explain with my poor english. I see the changes since 35 years and history repeats itself continuously.
IU is a real problem: a UI standards for all software seems to be more effective. But what would be the best UI? With only one UI the world become more bland. The creation sometimes need chaos to achieve great things. In the professional world, the standard is more important for efficiency reasons. The best example is Adobe, which owes its success to its suite of software for professionals. The latest version of Truespace loses some of its originality: it is nice but too complex. Its simplicity has disappeared. This is not a problem for me but probably for a newbie. Between 1980 and 1990, softs were more specialized. Then everyone has added features found in its competitors. The software becomes too complex. Today they are not complementary. They are competitors. Rayman loves small specialized software. I agree. The problem: when a program is successful, it changes quickly and become too complex. the software "eats" small soft and become fat or it disappears because it becomes too expensive to change. The real problem is our model of society based on competition. Stay complementary remains an utopia. Stay specialized is the only way to avoid to become unnecessary complex. What can we do?...
The best software is not the most efficient nor the most beautiful. it is that you understand. There is place for more programs because we are different. This makes me optimistic: the companies want to impose their standard but human are not standard.

[froo]

All very interesting points.

Rayman indicates using separate applications for specific tasks. Each app's interface is tailored (at least attempted)
to the workflow specific to the task set. These apps are task-specific, so to speak.

On the other hand, are more generalized apps, which try to support several complex tasks. I do not own these apps, so I am just hypothesizing based on what I am reading here. It sounds like the interfaces for any given application are fairly uniform within that app. In other words, the interface for each task (Modelling, Texturing, Lighting, Animation) uses icons, or tabs, etc. The interfaces are not tuned to support the specific task. (I could be wrong, since I don't own other apps besides tS and blender).

Would it make sense then, for an app to have multiple interfaces, which are specifically tailored to the task at hand?

For example, let's say you intend to focus on modelling for a few hours. So you switch to the Modelling View. This view uses primarily icons, or, tabs, whatever is most efficient for that area of work. Nothing else is visible in this view: No timeline interface, no UV interface, etc.

Then when you are done modelling, you'll probably want to paint the model. So you switch to the Material Editor / UV Editor view. Again, you don't see a timeline, or Modelling tools. You only see the Material and UV tools in this view. All the tools are in the application of course, but you don't see them, because they don't belong in that view, for that task.

Granted, an interface doesn't mean anything unless the tools actually work correctly. But if those tools did work correctly, would that be an acceptable interface layout for more users?

I don't know if any applications are setup like this, out of the box. Just thinking out loud.

[marcel]

To show only the tools you need each time you do something different depend of the users. Each users have not the same need. it is difficult to create a UI for that. We need artificial intelligence for the future to help we. This UI could recognize the user and change for its need. today all we can do is to save a config and create a button if the soft can do that. but a lot of thing can't disappearr even if we want that. maybe in ten years....

[RAYMAN]

Froo and Marcel this is just the point your on the right track....
Most important is that you avoid to have many layers inbetween you and the tools and that you have something that feels right
with every task that you do....
Tabs are not bad to organise things but are another step between you and your tools
Carrara goes another way and has rooms......
If you guys want to see Ts developed you got to have an idea of how that interface should grow or if not you got to know
what other application or (s) fits your needs....
Its not an egotrip of the designers its a different vuepoint from different people....

[splinters]

I had many issues with the tS7 UI and was really hoping for a chance to work on 8 and do something really different and innovative.

Alas, that was never meant to be....

[DanX]

OK my 2 cents hehe.

I know what Rayman is saying and I agree for the most part. I think that to many options make for big confusion and huge manuals to read 4oo times to understand half of what you are doing. In the last few months I have been trying out different software packages. I will use Silo as an example. When I first opened silo I was able to find many of the tools almost immediately then by following along with Glen’s minotaur tutorial over a few days after work began to model with Silo. Even found myself picking up the shortcut keys easily. Total time invested about 12 hours over 5 days or so. I have made maybe about 14 or 15 medium detail models and I am still gaining better efficiency as I go. The point is I picked it up fast maybe because I started out in 3D with TS and Brice and contribute all the head banging to TS because of that.

I do like Photoshop’s panels and they way you can dock and undock the tabs to get your own setup. I think that a easily customizable UI is the ticket to ease of use rather than having to change programs to import and export to get down your pipeline to the finished product.

But at the same time if your software doesn’t do a job well then you shouldn’t clutter up your UI with tabs or icons until you have compared it to the programs that specialize in doing what your specific set of tools do. If your new addition can stand up to the competition and offer a little more functionality and ease of use then its worth the confusion and clutter to have it there. Kind of a no brainer.

Also I must say I thought of Carrara first off after reading this thread and then I saw Rayman mentioned it. And it has rooms that have only tools for modeling and texturing etc. The more I look into Carrara the more I like it although if each room were more like the Silo interface I think it would be easier to learn.


OOPS that’s more than 2 cents sorry.

[splinters]

Forgot to add that I actually liked the tS interface from version 1 onwards but it did look a bit 'dated' by version 6. When I got the chance to 'revive' the icons a bit I aimed to keep it familiar but a little more 'hi res', a bit like going from analogue TV to digital...
The workspace, while having workflow problems (IMO) had real potential.