[maxmsp] Re: why we will not use max 5

I agree with you there. I have always hated those annoying instrument  
pictures on the logic tracks. But there is a difference between  
something that looks "clean" and smooth and a GUI that is cluttered  
with pointless icons and symbols. In case of rounded objects, max  
just looks better (in my view, so I guess it is a matter of taste), I  
don't see how it tires the eyes. In fact it is easier on the eyes.

As an example take cubase, up to version 4 cubase looked terrible, so  
cluttered that after a while you'd get lost in your own session.  
Cubase 4 has simplified that and in my view looks great. But it also  
looks more smooth and glassy now (a positive improvement), so the two  
issues are completely apart.

Max has always been differentiated from other important languages  
(e.g. csound and supercollider) because of it's interface, not msp's  
performance (which is way inferior to say supercollider and csound).  
It is the user friendly interface that makes it what it is. So why  
not improve it (not clutter)? That's not to say that the performance  
shouldn't improve too...

Joking apart,  my point is that sometimes nostalgia gets in the way  
of a realistic outlook (this is not a comment about your post).

P

On 1 Nov 2007, at 17:49, Adam Kendall wrote:

>
> Now that everyone's made fun of this poor person...
>
> I've often been dismayed by software- and os-developers' attitudes  
> that photorealism, 3D, dropshadows and hyperdetailed interface  
> components are a good thing.  At some point too much detail causes  
> eye fatigue and is in general distracting.  I don't think there  
> should be any detail in an GUI object that doesn't directly support  
> the object.  Otherwise, it's nothing but style without purpose.
>
> I don't care one way or another about Max's new rounded corners.   
> But, in all seriousness, I think the OS9 design esthetic is far  
> superior to OSX, and I think Logic's v3 interface was far superior  
> to v4+.  The icons and objects clearly communicated their purpose  
> without excess detail.  Do we *really* need a photorealistic image  
> of a HD vs a well-made icon?  Do we really need overly-3D faders  
> when the less detailed version communicated just as much information?
>
> Maybe it's a "real world" bias people bring into computers.  The  
> sliders in Logic are *not* physical sliders -- They're software.   
> Why do they have to look so much like real ones?  The HD icon is  
> OSX is a figurative representation -- Why does it need to look  
> exactly like the real thing?  Using that logic, all website should  
> have a door and doorframe as their homepages, then a series of  
> doors, filing cabinets and draws to get information.
>
> One man's long and perhaps rambling opinion.
>
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> maxmsp mailing list
> maxmsp at cycling74.com
> http://www.cycling74.com/mailman/listinfo/maxmsp