I would find that faster/better/clearer/… to operate.
I sense a language barrier here, but I really don’t understand your question.
mod-host uses its own protocol to communicate with. Anyone could create their own interface for this.
It is unlikely that the MOD team will have the resources to make alternative UI at this stage, but you are free to start your own project and implement this.
(I’m actually looking at making a lua library that can communicate to mod-host, which could be integrated in löve2d and other lua-based projects for alternative controls)
Would anyone have a pointer to the mod-ui protocol documentation please ?
Edit : found it
Yes, perhaps I have expressed myself in a misleading way.
It is more a question addressed to the users if they have any suggestions/wishes/ideas/… for the use of the Web GUI.
And of course also to the developers whether the capacities for these suggestions/wishes/ideas/…, if any, are available. If so, whether they make sense or are technically feasible.
Meaning “in the distant future”, i.e. not immediately realisable.
Since @falkTX is the developer of Carla I thought this would be the easiest.
My main concern is the “Creating a pedalboard” interface. For example, I don’t find the zooming in/out optimal.
The “pedalboards library”, “Organizing Banks”, “plugins”, … and “Settings” are easy to use. There may also be suggestions/wishes/ideas/… for improvement, but this probably concerns less the GUI than …/other/… functions.
So rather brainstorm.
What could be a nice “community project” is porting a simple UI like the (React + TS based) one from jspatcher (github) which is quite similar to how you work in pure data or Max. Definitely a cool approach for CV patches.
This indeed a nice community question.
And from the team side I can tell you that we are saving this suggestions to future discussions on improvements. Obviously that the prioritisation has a lot of variables affecting it, so even if it seems that something makes a lot of sense, it doesn’t mean that it will be available/implemented in a super close future.
I’m not sure if i understood completely the extent of feasibility vs. wishful thinking of this topic, but I’ll drop in anyway…
I’d also like an alternative GUI for the Mod Devices. The current one is great on laptops and computers. Big scren and mouse. Recoding studio scenario.
It’s a lot worse on tablets and mobile. Small screens and touch interface. Rehearsal or on stage scenario.
I’d very much like a simpler, streamlined and touch friendly interface for places where i don’t have the time or resources to design a whole pedalboard, but only need some finishing touches.
The knobs and “pedal/amp like” skins for plugins are just eye candy after all. I’d gladly swap all knobs them all with sliders. The canvas would naturally be arranged in a sort of grid. No need for free placement of plugins
As said the protocol is open and anyone is free to make their own interface for it.
Just don’t expect the MOD team to do this right now (or any time), they have a lot on their plate already.
The web GUI works perfectly on a Samsung S4 tablet with S pen. The S pen works like a mouse so it’s much more easy to edit pedalboards than it can be with fingers. I think a 10 pouce screen is the minimum.
You can even connect a bluetooth mouse or keyboard to your tablet if you are looking for more portable thing than a computer.
Actually, I doubt that.
First, I don’t want to use a stylus or whatever when rehearsing and editing. As a guitarist I want my hands free.
Second, I’m not much of a fan of the current interface in general. I think all the skins for plugins to be mostly detrimental eye candy. What’s the use of having an amp plugin with looks like a “real” amp, including the cone grid, except for the “cool” factor (and doubling the occupied space in the interface)?
It’s not like we’re 20 years ago where having effect and synth VSTs that looked like the original models that they were modeled after would be a major selling point in convincing musicians coming to the PC world to buy them. I hope we’re after that. cleaner plugin interfaces with decent sized sliders and buttons “a la TouchOSC” would beat pseudo-photographic plugin skins by a lot IMHO.
To offer an alternative view, well-designed plug ins could do a combination of the following:
- Make plug-ins easier to learn, especially first time using them
- Increase the memorability, both for how to use and finding again in the library
- Reduce the amount of errors/mistakes
- Increase the enjoyment of use
It sounds like some of these potential benefits for you and other users are competing with the utility for you as you have already moved past the above.
Always trade-offs with software, and it is impossible to cover all the cases all of the time.
Thankfully there are a few options here:
- Use the wide range of connectivity options to use different hardware to act as a controller
- Make your own UI’s for the plug ins that are most troublesome
- Convince other users that this would work for their use cases
- Convince MOD of the business case
I think you’re already tackling the bottom two, would the others be an option?
Again, trade-offs everywhere…
Interesting views, indeed.
I agree that everyone has different likes and dislikes, and what is a benefit for one is a handicap for another.
I agree that all your goals in plugin design are indeed good goals, where maybe my view differs is in HOW to reach those goals. In facts, I believe all of them could be reached by giving the plugins a more simple, stylized and usable design rather that trying to replicate the look of real world pedals or amps or cabinets.
So, it’s not a matter that “I have moved past”. I still think those goals are important. i don’t agree neither that they have been reached nor that the nostalgic path of design typical of desktop applications such as Carla and Catia is the best path, on an interface that could be usable on a tablet, on top of everything else.
Diffrerent strokes, at the end. I’m just curious so know if someone else might think the same way I do or I’m the only one. Personally, being my use case of a guitarist, that works most in a rehearsal room with other people, where composition and sound engineering is made in places where using a computer is not a viable option, I have so far been quite disappointed by the Duo. Wonderful device and all, but you can’t even reduce the amount of reverb in a preset on stage if the hall has enough of it if you have forgotten to bind the parameter to a knob at design time in the studio,
I know that there are options to work around this, and you indeed list some. Unfortunately, I don’t think they are actually enough.
Using other hardware means other expenses on top of the device, and doesn’t solve the fact that you must take time to bind each and every parameter you want to be able to manipulate at “stage time” every time you add or remove a plugin at “studio time”.
Making your own UI is out of reach for almost the entirety of Mod users, so, well, that’s not an option too.
So I’m just tossing my point of view here, for discussion sake.
At work, I hate colleagues dropping by at the desk asking for some feature and saying “it won’t take long, just a few lines of code”. Most of the time, they have no clue what the consequences are and that we are building technical debt. Having said that, I would really like to be that guy in the case of a better/different/other web GUI.
The pieces are already in place: Standardised setting for each pedal on a full-width screen. Why not just programmatically loop over all pedals on a board and show the settings below one another?
setting_screen_list =  for pedal_setting in pedalboard_list: setting_screen_list.append(pedal_setting)
A button would be needed and scrollbars would have to appear if the settings exceeded the screen size, but that’s about it. Sure, one could not make adjustments to the connections but I would definitely use such an overview.