Software vs. Hardware

[James R. Coplin]

> James R. Coplin schreef:
> > Once you add a wheel and click combinations, it should be *even
> > better* than a traditional interface.
> 
> But it still doesn't have tactile feedback.

A mouse has as much tactile feedback as a knob in reality.  Obviously it has
no feedback while controlling a virtual knob.  It seems to me that a UI
could be built where the mouse could be a very useful controller.  Most mice
have enough buttons that they could provide easy access to most useable
parameters.  

For example:
x axis is volume, y axis cutoff
1st button down: x axis pan, y axis mod rate
Etc.

This would give at least 2 dimensions of simultaneous and yet independent
controls. 

> But it's unnecessarily complex if, for example, you want to go up a
> number of semi-tones. You can't just your hands to the right, you have
> to press different white and black keys as well. In this regard, the
> hexagonal keyboard is simpler.

This is true but I've been thinking quite a lot about a hexagonal controller
as well.  I can't seem to find anyone who has used one extensively who is
from a playing background.  It strikes me that the layout of the piano tends
to push your use in a particular direction because of the layout.  It
physically shapes and moves your hands in a very deliberate, if unintended
way.  I'm thinking of the differences between gospel music and classical in
particular.  The usage and interaction with the instrument are very, very
different and both are shaped by the layout.  Would either have developed in
a hexagonal system?  I doubt it.  It also seems to me that while the
hexagonal system is pattern based, I wonder how easy things like inner
voicings are. It is fairly easy on a piano to subtly drop notes and change
voicings or melt between chords with similar structures and inversions.
Part of the reason is that there is relatively a lot of room on a keyboard.
In a hexagonal system where things are much more tight, it may be
convenient, but it seems also to be fatiguing and lacking a little of
breathing room regarding inner notes.

I'd love to get my hands on a hex interface to see for myself.  However, at
the price point and sketchy construction availability available currently I
won't risk the investment.

> > interface.  However, it is interesting to see that many of the same
people
> > who feel that more complex controls are more "expressive" also think
that
> > the more expressive mouse is junk and the lowly knob a superior
interface.
> > The main problem with the mouse isn't the mouse's fault.  Blame UI
designers
> > for keeping the knob model in a UI where it has no business existing.
> > But who says that more complex is more expressive? It could as easily be
> > argued that complexity and expressiveness are inversely proportional. 

I completely agree with this.  I happen to really find the keyboard
expressive myself.  However, my first instrument was violin which only has
two points of contact (I mean really, how often are multi-string flourishes
etc *really* useful).  I've often missed the expressive control I had with
that instrument.  There was an incredibly personal and intimate control over
expression that I do miss.  Unfortunately, I haven't played a violin in
many, many years and I don't think I have enough leisure time left in my
life to get back to where I was.

James R. Coplin