[PD] default [output~] in Pd-extended

[Mathieu Bouchard]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> I've taught Pd quite a bit at this point, and I have watched many people 
> not understand the number boxes as a interactive GUI element.  Its based 
> on my experience, that's all.  There is no scientific process behind it. 
> It is also based on my experience learning Pd, back in the day.  I 
> remember it took me a while before I could get the examples working, and 
> I had been working with Csound, Cmix, MusicKit and others before, so I 
> was quite familiar with the concepts.

Ok. My next question is then: why isn't numberbox taught before any 
[output~] is introduced, in tutorials and courses that it's intended to go 
in?

And then, if they shouldn't learn the numberbox at the beginning, then 
when should they?... the numberbox is pretty much all over the place, and 
its behaviour (compared to spinboxes and such) is not something that was 
done randomly... well, understanding the creative process, then maybe it's 
been done randomly, but it certainly wasn't kept randomly! ergonomically 
it makes sense: it gives faster control on a number, than a spinbox does. 
I'd even say it didn't go far enough. There is no sensitivity control for 
dragging ("scrolling") into numberboxes. The [nbx] (IEMGUI) class has the 
log-height feature, but of course it only works in log mode. With the 
sensitivity control, the numberbox would be a clearer winner, but not as 
much as if it actually had the spinbox's arrow. That's especially feasible 
in the [nbx] class, which wastes a lot of space that could be recycled as 
buttons.

Now, about scientific processes... it's not all to have a scientific 
process or not... you get to different conclusions (scientific processes 
or not) depending on what you aim for. This is a part that I don't see 
many people talking about. One's aims determine assumptions about the 
research, assumptions that might be implicit or else often worded like 
they are only ones worth using. But usability studies are funded by 
companies who have a mass diffusion model. Those companies live by selling 
new licenses of software. Those licenses of software tend to be more sold 
to beginners than to experimented users, if the userbase is in vast 
expansion compared to the rate of license renewal. As the usability 
studies are ordered by the marketing operations, the assumptions will be 
as beginner-oriented as the marketing department is. This is why user 
interfaces are geared towards what the first impression will be like, at 
the expense of the following years of use, with a tendency to ignore the 
fact that people learn, because that learning only occurs after the 
license is bought. This is IMHO why usability studies and famous UI 
guideline books have to be approached with suspicion, regardless of how 
tight their scientific and statistical standards are.

Free, community-oriented software isn't necessarily different. Rationally, 
it depends on their score-keeping: if they are mainly motivated by getting 
new beginner users, they will just do the same as companies that are 
mainly selling licenses to new beginner users. Non-rationally, a project 
could have any other userbase goals but still act like they're aiming for 
beginners, because they follow UI advice designed for new beginner users 
without questioning whether it really applies.

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec