10Ten


It needs a trim control

That is at the bottom of the Input widget. The idea was to associate the Trim/Gain with the Input and the Volume with the Output.

UnderTow

UnderTow

10Ten


It needs a trim control

That is at the bottom of the Input widget. The idea was to associate the Trim/Gain with the Input and the Volume with the Output.

UnderTow

I don't see it, but it should go in the empty space to the right of the input gain.

FastBikerBoy


I think someone commented earlier that it wouldn't wrap well when narrowing it down. Surely it would be possible for the frames to shrink down as the view narrows?

That'd solve that wouldn't it? It's much easier to see what's what in your version.

I'm sure there is a way to shrink it elegantly but you know the thing that bothered me most with the way it is done in X1 are the Input and Output widgets. If they were replaced by wide widgets similar to mine (just the input and output lines without the gain/volume/pan stuff) then things would already be much clearer. Then they could just grow or shrink horizontally as the track edge is pulled out or in.

Btw, I think it is Brandon that mentioned the wrapping. If you are reading Brandon, you might want to look at how the Send widgets react in X1. They don't shrink or wrap and thus prevent other widgets in the track headers from shrinking or wrapping. In other words, what I propose above is not any worse than the current Sends widget design.

UnderTow

10Ten

UnderTow

10Ten


It needs a trim control

That is at the bottom of the Input widget. The idea was to associate the Trim/Gain with the Input and the Volume with the Output.

UnderTow

I don't see it, but it should go in the empty space to the right of the input gain.

I am not sure that there is much point in having a separate Trim and Gain on the input... On the other hand what Cakewalk could do is put a Preamp gain control in the empty space that remotely controls their V-Series control surface preamps. Not that I have one but it would give a little bit of added value for those that do.

UnderTow

UnderTow

10Ten

UnderTow

10Ten


It needs a trim control

That is at the bottom of the Input widget. The idea was to associate the Trim/Gain with the Input and the Volume with the Output.

UnderTow

I don't see it, but it should go in the empty space to the right of the input gain.

I am not sure that there is much point in having a separate Trim and Gain on the input... On the other hand what Cakewalk could do is put a Preamp gain control in the empty space that remotely controls their V-Series control surface preamps. Not that I have one but it would give a little bit of added value for those that do.

UnderTow

You're right I missed the input association.

Just to note, and I'm sure it's just because it's a mock up, but in 8.5 the icon for gain is the triangle made out of bars and the volume one is solid, it's just one more little clue to help you understand what you're looking at.

10Ten, what's the difference between trim and gain that you're asking for? I can't help feeling I'm missing out on something!

Just a little brain fart but (that's a little outside the scope of this thread) but it would be cool if modifier clicking the pan control opened the channel tools (rather than needing to add it as a plug).

Child

Hey Undertow - This is looking great. I mentioned the wrap issue many posts ago, but your point about the Sends having this problem anyway is a good one.

Some further suggestions:

The blank space in the input widget could be used for buttons that apply to input - I suggest "Record" and "Input echo".

The widgets could extend to the left of the track header (underneath the icon). This is wasted space.

I think the little squiggle above Gain and Volume is unnecessary - you already have one icon for these.

Each widget could be color-coded, so that the name, volume and pan sub-widgets are different shades of the same color. At the moment the light blue of the pan sub-widget is a little confusing because the send is this color too.

I think Brandon made the point about "white space" (although I'm not sure he used that term). All good design contains white space, and it could be argued that where you put the white space is a key factor in clarity. This point conflicts somewhat with my suggestions above :)

Cheers, Peter.

Rothchild

Just to note, and I'm sure it's just because it's a mock up, but in 8.5 the icon for gain is the triangle made out of bars and the volume one is solid, it's just one more little clue to help you understand what you're looking at.

Fixed.

Just a little brain fart but (that's a little outside the scope of this thread) but it would be cool if modifier clicking the pan control opened the channel tools (rather than needing to add it as a plug).

It certainly would and the pan control should give a very clear indicator when the Stereo Tools is not at it's default setting. (To avoid needless confusion of why a track is behaving the way it does). For instance the little Pan Icon could be replaced by something else.

PeterMc


Hey Undertow - This is looking great. I mentioned the wrap issue many posts ago, but your point about the Sends having this problem anyway is a good one.

Indeed. Still if there is a solution for this it would be good.

The blank space in the input widget could be used for buttons that apply to input - I suggest "Record" and "Input echo".

Indeed. I thought of that but I am not sure they would be easy to find and this might contribute to a messy look. I think that if a single item was put there it could be OK. Like for instance the Input Echo. And not just the current widget but something that is a bit wider. Maybe even text like "Echo"or something. I think the MSR buttons should remain grouped. That is what people would expect.

The widgets could extend to the left of the track header (underneath the icon). This is wasted space.

Absolutely. I have been putting that off because I haven't found a way in GIMP to group layers. That means moving every individual element separately. (Next I'll be sending feature requests to the GIMP dev team ).

I think the little squiggle above Gain and Volume is unnecessary - you already have one icon for these.

That means that there is an envelope active in the track. That is how it works in X1 and previous versions of Sonar. (There is no actual envelope in this mock-up but that is beside the point. ;-) ). I did make a mistake though: There is no Gain Envelope. It doesn't exist. I moved it to where it should be: The Output Pan.

Each widget could be color-coded, so that the name, volume and pan sub-widgets are different shades of the same color. At the moment the light blue of the pan sub-widget is a little confusing because the send is this color too.

Yep. Fixed that.

I think Brandon made the point about "white space" (although I'm not sure he used that term). All good design contains white space, and it could be argued that where you put the white space is a key factor in clarity. This point conflicts somewhat with my suggestions above :)

I think the term is "Negative Space". Yes, we need some Negative Space to keep things clean but at the moment I feel there is too much.

Anyway, another version:



I'll move elements to the left in a future version. :)

UnderTow

Thinking a little out the box now but would having the FX bin in the same column as the sends narrow things down even more.

It wouldn't need to be as large depth ways as it is at the moment, it could expand to fit however many fx are in it, or be switched off per track if not used.

That would allow your look to stay almost as it is but also have the track pane wider and the whole header narrower while still maintaining visibility of info.

Does that make sense?

FastBikerBoy


Thinking a little out the box now but would having the FX bin in the same column as the sends narrow things down even more.

It wouldn't need to be as large depth ways as it is at the moment, it could expand to fit however many fx are in it, or be switched off per track if not used.

That would allow your look to stay almost as it is but also have the track pane wider and the whole header narrower while still maintaining visibility of info.

Does that make sense?

Do you mean below the Sends? That is a possibility but it would mean having to open up the track header (vertically) quite a bit before seeing the FX bin. Too much for regular use IMO.

What I would suggest is that that could be part of the wrap behaviour. If the Track Header / Track Lane delimiter is pulled to the left so that there is no more space for the Fx Bin AND there is still space below the Sends (or Output of there are no Sends), then the FX Bin could wrap down there.

So in a sense, if I understood you correctly, it is what you suggest by only if the Track Header is too narrow to show the FX Bin on the right. Does that make sense?

UnderTow