Skeuomorphic or not?

[AlGrenadine]

Is a skeuomorphic UI still perceived as modern or great UI in the music software?
I mean, in an ideal AxeEdit or AxeFx III, would you prefer real-looking knobs, switches and sliders or do you think idealized ones (like in actual AxeEdit or AxeFx frontpanel UIs) are easier to read or nicer or any other argument?
Please argue

 

[mrMagenta]

I have no preference. I'd say it depends on what the software aims to do and if it is practical. I like the fractal audio way though. It is matching with its domain, in my opinion. Expert hardware after all, with tons of exposed variables to tweak.. if everything was made to look like its real counterpart it would hide a lot of functionality och potentially frustrate the expert users. I would think it doesn't have to be fully either or.. sometimes it's nice to have visual cues that make people feel at home, associate stuff with the domain so to say.. can be subtle and still make an interface more readable.. The downside of overly abstract design is that it is easier feel confused, eyes have less to grab on to. To me, Ableton is an example of this.. personally think it looks uninviting, though I guess one gets used to it, and perhaps even learns to like it.

 

[bradlake]

Although I enjoy a well-done skeuomorphic (UAD for example does it consistently), I believe that FAS would never adapt that approach at this point, the underlying philosophy always seeming to favor no wasted CPU /hardware on aesthetics , and the fact that over the years, the FAS method of
Grid/Block control and the overall looks /layout of AxeEdit has now become sorta iconic. I’m no coder, but I would think having to create a skeuomorphic for each and every amp, effect, and cab, (where do you stop) would be a monumental task. My dumb opinion is that the product is awesome as it is, and an attempt at skeuomorphics would create clutter and confusion.

 

[h.c.e.]

I always find the "knob" paradigm on computer UIs odd... a twisting motion is very natural and accurate for something we grab with our thumb and index finger in the real world, and very odd for something we grab with the click of a mouse. Then you couple that with how various softwares seem to interpret the motion (is it more up/down skewed, side side, diagonal?) as rotation is a very complex motion to make with a mouse, and it just becomes kind of a frustrating UI element to interact with in any kind of precise manner. Horizontal sliders paired with a text entry box are probably the more efficient UI control for numerical value input when you have keyboard/mouse/screen as your interaction model, but I also appreciate that something like Axe-Edit would probably look kinda ugly, lame, and uninspiring with like 13 horizontal sliders and four check boxes all stacked up when you click on the Amp and the basic page loads, so I allow for the affordance of a knob visual design. Whether or not that knob looks like the proper knob for a Marshall amp or a Moog or a Fender Rhodes or whatever... meh.

 

[AlGrenadine]

I always find the "knob" paradigm on computer UIs odd... a twisting motion is very natural and accurate for something we grab with our thumb and index finger in the real world, and very odd for something we grab with the click of a mouse. Then you couple that with how various softwares seem to interpret the motion (is it more up/down skewed, side side, diagonal?) as rotation is a very complex motion to make with a mouse, and it just becomes kind of a frustrating UI element to interact with in any kind of precise manner. Horizontal sliders paired with a text entry box are probably the more efficient UI control for numerical value input when you have keyboard/mouse/screen as your interaction model, but I also appreciate that something like Axe-Edit would probably look kinda ugly, lame, and uninspiring with like 13 horizontal sliders and four check boxes all stacked up when you click on the Amp and the basic page loads, so I allow for the affordance of a knob visual design. Whether or not that knob looks like the proper knob for a Marshall amp or a Moog or a Fender Rhodes or whatever... meh.

Yes and what about touch devices?
Also skeuomorphic doesn't imply using the same knobs you have on the real amp, the goal is clearly to achieve an enjoyable UI

 

[h.c.e.]

Yes and what about touch devices?
Also skeuomorphic doesn't imply using the same knobs you have on the real amp, the goal is clearly to achieve an enjoyable UI

Yeah, I think on touch devices a knob UI element does work better, as you're back to having more of a connection the element and your hand. Though I still feel like what makes a knob work so well in the real is that the thumb and index finger grip makes twisting one very efficient, you can get broad motion or precise motion both with minimal movement. When you're clicking on a screen with your index finger alone, rotation is way more wrist based and inefficient, and when doing it with a mouse you have to get the whole elbow and shoulder involved in a way and is probably the most inefficient.

 

[jefferski]

I like the skeuo design that Reason uses - for example, the mixer looks like real channel strips w/ knobs, buttons, etc; most of the rack effects look like real rack effects (they even have rack rails and screws ;-). And I like how rotary knobs save space vs if everything on there was a slider it would take a lot more scrolling. (however, the volume faders on the mixer are sliders, just like a real mixer).

But for Axe Edit, I've been quite happy w/ the way it has worked and looked, and the mockups of AE III look great to me as well. I don't care that the knobs truly look like knobs (the way Reason does it, they even have shadows), but I do like the usefulness of knobs - and that they have a numeric entry field. Again, if everything in AE was sliders they would probably take up more space. And, most amps and pedals have knobs so it feels consistent w/ the paradigm we're all used to. Of course, sliders work well and feel right for a few fx, such as the GEQ where you would expect them.

But the original question was skeuo vs abstract - I guess I come down in the middle. Not too abstract, but I don't need them to be overly realistic, and no I don't need each device to look like it's real-life counterpart.

 

[unix-guy]

First off, I'm trusting that you didn't just make up the word "skeuomorphic". Never heard it before

I can see benefits to both.

In the modeling space, being able to have access to the "real" controls is great when a) you are very familiar with the device being modeled or b) trying to copy someone's settings from the real device.

A cool approach might be to have access to the skeuomorphic layout of each component as a "layer" or "skin", while also having access to advanced parameters.

Sort of like an effect pedal that has internal trim pots, doing mods...

I'm completely fine with the Axe Fx method... But many people seemed to be "challenged" by this approach.

 

[jefferski]

I first learned the word a few years ago when iOS 7 switched from more realistic looking 3D-ish icons to flat GIF-style...

 

[AlGrenadine]

I first learned the word a few years ago when iOS 7 switched from more realistic looking 3D-ish icons to flat GIF-style...

Tbh i learned the word few months ago when i searched how to design realistic knobs. I'm still bad at it, it really needs graphist skills

 

[h.c.e.]

I first learned the word a few years ago when iOS 7 switched from more realistic looking 3D-ish icons to flat GIF-style...

Yeah, to me the exemplar of skeuomorphism run amuck was mid to late 2000s era OS X when QuickTime had been brushed metal for years (unfortunately) and then they made the Finder brushed metal for no reason.. oh man what a bad idea. Then there was iCal and the Address Book that had a faux corinthian leather texture to them (I’ve read because Steve liked the way the desk calendar on his private jet looked). The begin of the end for that was when they had that brushed aluminum look volume slider in the Music app actual react to the gyroscope so that turning the device would cause the anisotropic highlight on the control would actual rotate with the turning of the device. I mean, was it slick? Sure. Did it have any bearing on the functionality or readibility of the UI? None whatsoever. It’s like they had completely forgot Dieter Rams’s 10 principles of good design. Mercifully they have walked back most of that to the more consistent flat designs of current gen macOS and iOS

As much as skeumorphic designs were being derided in 2011 or so, I will say that they have always made more sense to me in music software where the behavior they’re attempting to mimic at least has a functional benefit to the real world corollary. Like the aforementioned Reason. Do you have to be able to flip a rack around and make patch chord connections to wire module together to get the same result in a computer? No, but at least the behavior makes some sense and has a real world analog between the UI beahvior and the intended result. I think music software is one place you can get away with skeumorphism because at least the UI adornments and embellishments have a purpose in most that I’ve scene, not just a leather border because real world desk calendars had a leather boarder.

 

[iaresee]

Death to skeuomorphism -- Apple has left that dark, dark era. Let us never return.

 

[Rex]

Skeuomophism, as it applies here, defers to the comfort of electric-guitar traditionalists. There are many of those; in fact, they are likely the majority. But that demographic is changing, even as you’re reading this. In the near future, a skeuomorphic interface will look as dated as the amps they represent. But there will always be sort of a cool factor there.

I’m okay with or without skeuomorphism, as long as it doesn’t hamper the utility of the interface. In the coming years, the desire for a traditional-looking Interface will be outstripped by the expectation that an Interface will be efficient, intuitive and comprehensive.

 

[AlGrenadine]

Very interesting answers, as often on this forum
But pretty heterogeneous results, so i guess an app has to propose the 2 options

 

[Tom Morris]

Chicken head knobs is where it’s at!

 

[Rex]

...i guess an app has to propose the 2 options

I don't know about "has to," but if you have both options available, it would appeal to a broader audience. My thought is to make it comprehensive first, then let it be simple and familiar. I think more people would be upset if there's something that it can't do than would be upset because there's no Tolex option.

 

[mongoose_eyeball]

Though I like the skeuomorphic approach in the UA plug-ins, I wouldn't want to see Fractal go the same route. For one thing, specific amp and cab models are just the starting point when I'm making a patch; If I open Neve 1073, Pultec and LA-2A plug-ins at the same time in UA Console, they remain just like three distinct rack units, patched in and individually modifiable, but distinct nonetheless, exactly like their real-world counterparts. But in the Fractal, everything is integrated; most of my patches are hybrid mutants, rather than faithful reproductions of a single brand's amp/cabinet combination.

Also, think of the complexity that the Axe architecture would create in an attempt to do this. When I choose an amp model, I've got eight layers of control pages for that amp model, some with a bunch of knobs and drastic interactivity. That kind of depth has no real-world, iconic visual corollary, at least not one that people know well enough to justify the Skeuomophism. Sure, it might be fun to switch from a Bogner to a Marshall to a Boogie and watch the faceplates and knob styles change, but if you go to the Preamp or Power Amp pages, are you going to be looking into the back of the amp? Into the guts? And even on the Basic page, there's the whole copyright issue; most of the amp model names are disguised for a reason. Do I care enough about seeing Vox fabric on my AC30 in order to see Fractal having to pay some company money to cop their Logo, money which could've been spent continuing the consistently amazing parade of updates and improvements?

And don't forget that--unless you're an Ax8 user, you've got the possibility of four separate amps, cabs, delays, etc. in a single patch. I built a patch tonight for an upcoming sub gig that runs a 5153 100W Red simultaneously with an Angle Severe in the same scene. So should we be looking at a Seinfeld's "Pigman" style mashup of the Engl and Peavey logos? And that's just the X sides...

Lastly, I've had my Axe-FX II since System 5 or 6; I'm really, really used to tweaking the controls with the current layout. I don't want to waste time adapting to a bunch of slightly different layouts to find the same controls.

That said, I agree with h.c.e. about the superiority of sliders. I hate turning knobs with the awful Mac "magic" mouse. I generally just hit the textbox above the knob and type in a value in order to avoid the whole up/down/around knob-turning process.