edit&mixer wide view
edit&mixer tightened view
No need to recompile.
Just replace fader_belt.png and fader_belt_h.png in:
[do a backup of the 2 files, before overwriting, so you can revert]
maybe do a page with alternative Ardour designs? May be interesting for some people, although personally I like the current design very much and think the fader design is better than your ordinary one (we had this discussion somewhere around here).
how about a hybrid of sorts:
(the little knobs are from my late-70s Auditronics mixer)
[edit: for those who haven’t seen one, and are wondering why i would make a round fader head:
I love these faders by the way, they feel great]
I like cbreeze34’s knob-on-a-ribbon idea. Here’s another variant, with a narrower ribbon:
And the source (intended for the dark theme. Won’t look right with the light theme):
Buccia: I’m not 100% sure, but I think that if you want your fader compatible with other themes, you need to insert a transparent layer in the png, instead of the gray background.
[see my 2 source imgs above].
About the thread: buccia’s design is very good-looking, and it makes both ribbon and “true” fader co-exist, but maybe using only the mouse the ribbon is too much narrow, I dont know…
My goal was only to make an alternative fader design for people using mainly control surfaces in mix…
Not really Taboo, just one with more to it than is readily apparent;)
Seriously make suggestions, the worst that can happen is someone says no.
I’m not saying the belts aren’t fine, I also made it quite clear that the general look of the GUI is good as is, I even put a huge disclaimer in my original post so I didn’t get misunderstood on that. I’m asking if there’s any interest in (a) Polishing some MINOR details (b) Offering alternative UI’s or UI portions.
I find the logic a little fuzzy in saying that it’s software not hardware so why have faders, when the vertical mixer strips and everything else are a general approximation of a Mixing Board anyway (as they should be for the familiarity aspect and relevance to other existing products).
Anyway, finally I’m getting the hint that this is a taboo topic, so I’ll leave it alone and quietly play with my “fader” pixmaps!
I think the general idea is to make things work like hardware that people are familiar with UNLESS there is a better way of doing it.
Sorry to pull up such an old thread…but.
Is there any renewed interest in this kind of customization of Ardour? I’ve made a couple of comments over the years about the panning faders and there was some discussion about fader design sometime back. I find when comments or concerns are brought forward about Ardour’s GUI that immediately there is a defensive panic that someone wants to turn it into Logic or Cubase with Shiny Chrome knobs etc.
I’m not suggesting that at all, Ardour has an simple and attractive GUI and I realize the core developers are focused on it’s performance. I show Ardour to anyone who will listen, but I hear many comments that despite it’s solid performance the the GUI looks about 98% finished, Looking at it objectively from the outside I have to agree, Are there any among us who’d be interested in applying their Graphical skills to some of these finishing touches? (With Paul’s approval of course)
I don’t think Ardour needs 400 alternative skins like Reaper, however a little touch up on the UI would I think be in keeping with how great the “engine” under the paint job works.
What do my fellow Ardour users think?
I would be willing to open a ticket for this, any other takers?
Well I can tell you that the fader design in Ardour was a specific choice to my knowledge, and would likely need to be a specific improvement to it. I don’t know the full reasoning behind the design choice, I wasn’t around IRC at that time to learn it, btu I remember some discussion about it some time ago.
Not saying don’t do it, but am saying that it will need to be GOOD;) There is at least one person I know of on IRC that has spent time recently working on visual aspects and proposing new faders etc. Some of his ideas get supported, some don’t. I don’t think a new fader proposal has been accepted yet to my knowledge anyways.
Thanks for replying, The faders are at least a gui pixmap of some kind even if they are not everyone’s cup of tea. however the panning faders and insert “indicators” are what I find needing some visual help.
Yep, won’t argue that there could definitly be some polish work done, don’t get me wrong;) I look forward to seeing more suggestions/mockups for improvement.
the point of the belts is that they make it totally clear that you do not need to aim at the “knob” or “handle” to control it. this is why we switched away from the traditional kind of design for these things. this is software, not hardware, and our job is to make it better.
Ahh I was curious as to the exact reasoning. Thanks Paul.
The belts are fine. No need to change that in my opinion. The less GUI clutter the better. The belts are totally visually unobtrusive and function great. I’ve worked in apps where the GUI has had way to much visual clutter. Simple function and looks is what we want and with careful design, this looks more stylish in my opinion. It also makes the app look simpler than it really is and hence easier to learn. If new users are confronted with a mass of GUI it is actually off putting and confusing.
The point about this not being hardware is important and I think a lot of developers do not think about that properly when it comes to the GUI. There are ways to make software easier. I do not want something that looks and works like a rack of hardware.
for me, it’s not so much a matter of polish than a matter of how the GUI influences the workflow. I believe there’s a feature request in the issue tracker about edit or mix groups, which is as much about GUI as it is about workflow (I personally don’t fully agree with the guy’s request for a couple of reasons). That’s the kind of discussion that is more interesting to me.
On the other hand, I understand Glenn’s point about minor details (2% unfinished) and maybe ardour should come bundled with a few more pixmaps regrouped in different styles (not 400 styles, but 2-3 more maybe ?). The default would be what it is now, which I am fine with anyhow.