# New to Cubase/Nuendo. My eyes hurt.



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

Have you ever been in situation where you study and become so specialized in a subject that you can't ignore it in regular parts of life? Perhaps you're a chef and so you're a bit judgemental when you eat at certain places. 

Well, I teach user interface design which includes topics such as color theory, visual hierarchy, and typography. I also just started using Nuendo and it makes me sad. I am desperate to fix it.

Is there any way to fix the typefaces?? Or control more color options? Any hacks? I will literally write some code in order to customize this UI. Typographically I'm referring specifically to titles on tracks: that bold, DOS-like, sans-serif.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Zedcars (Nov 2, 2021)

I’m like this when I hear an inappropriate cue in a film/TV show or advert. Or if I hear a bad legato transition, or overly heavy percussion, or bad harmony choices. Yeah, it’s unavoidable but in the end you just have to live with it.

It terms of hacks to change the font inside Cubase? Well I guess it may be possible but totally beyond my abilities. In the end is it going to make your music any better?

I once spend hours figuring out how to change the colour scheme inside Spitfire’s plugins. I did eventually figure it out and changed the dark scheme to a lighter one. But it meant doing it every time there was a new update and I couldn’t be bothered with the hassle and potential to break something and make it unstable. It wasn’t worth it for me.

Edit: There are a lot of colour customisation options in Cubase/Nuendo already.


----------



## Zedcars (Nov 2, 2021)

A very old post but it may yield some answers for you:









KVR Forum: Cubase 5.5 font hack - Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.) Forum


KVR Audio Forum - Cubase 5.5 font hack - Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.) Forum




www.kvraudio.com


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

I think what bothers me is that I spent a lot of money for software with poor UI and I know they have the budget to hire two graduate students from my university to do a better job. Additionally a good UI/UX can improve cognitive load and comprehension. When you have improved cognitive load it can influence output--in our case musical output.

This annoys me because... Steinberg should know this.

I will continue looking into this.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> A very old post but it may yield some answers for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This gives me hope.


----------



## devonmyles (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Is there any way to fix the typefaces?? Or control more color options? Any hacks? I will literally write some code in order to customize this UI. Typographically I'm referring specifically to titles on tracks: that bold, DOS-like, sans-serif.
> 
> Any suggestions?


I don't know about typefaces, but I have found quite a few colour options under 'Preferences' in Nuendo.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

devonmyles said:


> I don't know about typefaces, but I have found quite a few colour options under 'Preferences' in Nuendo.


Yeah...

But it begs the questions:

- Why is the text/icons within the track buttons black when it's on top of a dark gray? This may lack contrast.
- Track number colors don't appear to be designed to contrast with their background color either. Notice how track 11 number gets lost on the red background. This is because they have a similar brightness but different hue.
- Why are selected tracks automatically highlighted in near white? Why not highlight a selected track in the same hue of the track but with a different brightness and tone?

etc


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Yeah...
> 
> But it begs the questions:
> 
> ...


Studio One, for example, _attempts _to resolve this by automating a darker tone of the track background color so that a default, foreground, gray text has some contrast.

Ableton Live resolves this by inverting the text color when placed on a background of a darker color.

Cubase does not do enough to resolve issues relating to legibility or color combinations.


----------



## quickbrownf0x (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Have you ever been in situation where you study and become so specialized in a subject that you can't ignore it in regular parts of life? Perhaps you're a chef and so you're a bit judgemental when you eat at certain places.
> 
> Well, I teach user interface design which includes topics such as color theory, visual hierarchy, and typography. I also just started using Nuendo and it makes me sad. I am desperate to fix it.
> 
> ...


Hello, fellow designer. I've been in your line of work for a good two decades, so I definitely like seeing a decent UI, but I'd say if it's just the font you're worrying about - let it go, buddy. Or maybe join Steinberg to fix it?


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> A very old post but it may yield some answers for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read this post. In my OP I state that the text looks "DOS-like". The link you provided confirms. It is "Microsoft Sans Serif". About as lousy as it gets.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

There literally may be a hack for this, so no. https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291135&sid=af0b4402cc10b937630c7d0f32a2188f

We paid too much for this software.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

quickbrownf0x said:


> Hello, fellow designer. I've been in your line of work for a good two decades, so I definitely like seeing a decent UI, but I'd say if it's just the font you're worrying about - let it go, buddy. Or maybe join Steinberg to fix it?


I mean, it's more than the font. It's their slightly awkward use of 2d form with an overemphasis on strokes. They use outlines to express grouping and hierarchy. So many things are just outlined and creates excess clutter. They should reserve outlines for issues such as "focus". They should then express more depth/layers through things such as: shadows, contrast, color tones.

The only reason I'm not pressing _that _issue is because replacing the font would be easiest thing to address. Easiest thing. If we all demanded it, it would be easiest fix ever.


----------



## mjsalam (Nov 2, 2021)

Personally (and I'm no expert) I don't hate the font. I think there is lots of room for improvement in the Cubase UI but of all the DAWs that I have (S1, DP, Ableton, Logic) I find that my eyes are grateful for the size, clarity, and boldness of the Cubase font.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

mjsalam said:


> Personally (and I'm no expert) I don't hate the font. I think there is lots of room for improvement in the Cubase UI but of all the DAWs that I have (S1, DP, Ableton, Logic) I find that my eyes are grateful for the size, clarity, and boldness of the Cubase font.


I will blow your mind with other bold sans-serif fonts out there with better kerning.


----------



## mjsalam (Nov 2, 2021)




----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

mjsalam said:


>



I literally showed this to my class last week.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

I just mocked this up. Here are key things I want to point out:

- We deal with complex software
- Designed things need to communicate how we use them. What is it designed for?
- We need UI to communicate visual hierarchy. What is important? Less important? Where should our eyes look and our mind focus on for a current task?

- I made the inspector in "focus". Notice that I placed a light gray stroke around the inspector region. I also made it's background color a lighter gray than the rest. You can easily infer that there is something taking priority there because it is brighter.
- Notice that I didn't place a stroke around track region. There's no need for it because it's not in focus and also the limited gray contrast is offering enough to differentiate from the background.
- I chose a typeface, Source Sans Pro, because it's clean and versatile for UIs. I select the semibold weight. Notice how in semibold and white color it has enough contrast. It doesn't need to be entirely bold in order to have enough hierarchy or emphasis.
- I placed subtle strokes around the buttons in order to create contrast without being overbearing. The use of contrast must be used to communicate different levels of hierarchy so we don't need some bright, bold stroke around everything at the same time.


----------



## ka00 (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I just mocked this up. Here are key things I want to point out:
> 
> - We deal with complex software
> - Designed things need to communicate how we use them. What is it designed for?
> ...


Keep going, and send this to Steinberg. Maybe they’ll use it? Win-win.


----------



## mjsalam (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I just mocked this up. Here are key things I want to point out:
> 
> - We deal with complex software
> - Designed things need to communicate how we use them. What is it designed for?
> ...


I must say I do like the look.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I just mocked this up.


You seem to really like Studio One


----------



## M_Helder (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I just mocked this up. Here are key things I want to point out:
> 
> - We deal with complex software
> - Designed things need to communicate how we use them. What is it designed for?
> ...


I am pretty sure this is a post best suited for the Steinberg own forum, as there are actual employees involved. 

Who knows, maybe your thread there might get some actual tracktion and buzz, and hopefully catch Steinberg’s higher ups attention. 

Maybe that’s when we will finally get a clean modern look. Or not :/


----------



## quickbrownf0x (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I mean, it's more than the font. It's their slightly awkward use of 2d form with an overemphasis on strokes. They use outlines to express grouping and hierarchy. So many things are just outlined and creates excess clutter. They should reserve outlines for issues such as "focus". They should then express more depth/layers through things such as: shadows, contrast, color tones.
> 
> The only reason I'm not pressing _that _issue is because replacing the font would be easiest thing to address. Easiest thing. If we all demanded it, it would be easiest fix ever.


I know, but _maybe _it's not the biggest pain for most of their users, _or_ it turns out that _maybe _(after doing user research) the majority of them actually liked it.

In that case, people like you and me can suggest what we think is the most beautiful font until the cows come home. You know as well as I do that a balance between business value and user needs is what should matter. Well, that at least my take on things.

Maybe Steinberg have done their homework, maybe they haven't. Hard to say anything about this from the outside, right? Hard to say anything about this at all if you haven't spent time with their actual end users. But from a more general UI-point of view, sure - I get it. 

But you know - maybe best to ask them, help them see your point.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> You seem to really like Studio One


I just finished using Studio One. It won't solve the musical needs I have so I am retiring the software. I also wasn't trying to copy it. The fact is that it solves UI problems that Cubase has. If you addressed fundamental UI needs you would eventually end up with something that could have qualities like Logic Pro. Please keep in mind that this isn't about aesthetics. 

In many ways it will be very appropriate for all these DAWs to look boring BUT clear and easy. If I were in charge I would tell Steinberg that if they need to communicate their brand through the software's UI then it should be through subtle accent colors and typefaces. The rest should serve the user's needs with little interference.

And truthfully, I like Ableton Live.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

ka00 said:


> Not sure if you’re aware, Digitial Performer allows you to use your own themes.
> 
> https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/personalising-digital-performer
> Also, they offer cross grades from Nuendo. And your Nuendo license can be sold.


Eeh. I just tried their demo. I didn't dive too far into it but I couldn't take it that far.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

M_Helder said:


> I am pretty sure this is a post best suited for the Steinberg own forum, as there are actual employees involved.
> 
> Who knows, maybe your thread there might get some actual tracktion and buzz, and hopefully catch Steinberg’s higher ups attention.
> 
> Maybe that’s when we will finally get a clean modern look. Or not :/


Yeah I may visit their forum. Again my original post was regarding a way to change the font. Someone presented a potential hack I still need to try later. So my question may be answered.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

ka00 said:


> Not sure if you’re aware, Digitial Performer allows you to use your own themes.
> 
> https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/personalising-digital-performer
> Also, they offer cross grades from Nuendo. And your Nuendo license can be sold.


I bought a copy of Nuendo with the educator discount so I'm not sure how easy it can be sold. I also realize I'll just need to cry about the UI as I compose. Might add some vitality to my work.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> If you addressed fundamental UI needs you would eventually end up with something that could have qualities like Logic Pro. Please keep in mind that this isn't about aesthetics.


I've been a user of Cubase since 2004 and I'll be honest - I actually like the UI! To me, it looks clear, structured and very easy to work in. I can do it with my eyes closed.

But that's because I'm used to it now and especially because I do relate to its design logic. Not everyone does and I'm also sure it's acquired taste so some degree. 

And finally I've taken the time to get familiar with it. But obviously, you don't have the time and you're quite used to Studio One. So I can understand why you might be biased and judgmental.



estevancarlos said:


> Perhaps you're a chef and so you're a bit judgemental when you eat at certain places.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I've been a user of Cubase since 2004 and I'll be honest - I actually like the UI! To me, it looks clear, structured and very easy to work in. I can do it with my eyes closed.
> 
> But that's because I'm used to it now and especially because I do relate to its design logic. Not everyone does and I'm also sure it's acquired taste so some degree.
> 
> And finally I've taken the time to get familiar with it. But obviously, you don't have the time and you're quite used to Studio One. So I can understand why you might be biased and judgmental.


It doesn't work that way man. Also I've used Ableton Live more and I prefer it.

It's often assumed that UI, which is tied together with UX, is just some aesthetic topic about what people "like". I made a post earlier about research into cognitive load--a theory that focuses on our ability to concentrate on multiple things at a time.

The truth is that IF Cubase had a more researched UI you could've learned to use it even faster than you initially did. Maybe you learned it in a day. A more intelligently developed UI could reduce that by some hours perhaps. The other factor is mental models which relates to how to make sense of the communication and interface presented to us. We can learn it. We can spend hours making sense and developing a mental model of what the software is communicating. We can then get used to that and it works for us for years.

That's not what I'm talking about though. UI design can decrease the time required to process the information, recall the information, and even make barrier to entry smoother for more people. In fact a more effective UI can reduce stress and strain.

I've also been using complicated software for years. I use MaxMSP.

You as the user may "like" it which is relevant. However you also got used to it and so it has established design patterns that you can follow. You've developed mental models of how Cubase works. What matters though is that there could have been a better way to learn it.

Consider that there could be two teachers teaching algebra. One could struggle to communicate the ideas and the students may slowly understand over time. Another teacher could communicate it effectively and the students process the information more quickly.

Our designed "things" have to communicate complex information such as hierarchy, how it has to be used, and whether a user has interacted with the designed thing.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I've been a user of Cubase since 2004 and I'll be honest - I actually like the UI! To me, it looks clear, structured and very easy to work in. I can do it with my eyes closed.
> 
> But that's because I'm used to it now and especially because I do relate to its design logic. Not everyone does and I'm also sure it's acquired taste so some degree.
> 
> And finally I've taken the time to get familiar with it. But obviously, you don't have the time and you're quite used to Studio One. So I can understand why you might be biased and judgmental.


Also, I hope I come off as weird and annoying like the "Papyrus" guy in the SNL video as opposed to an asshole. I am that guy. That is me 100%. He's also right.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> It doesn't work that way man.


I mean, I can see how subtle insinuations of my total ignorance, pop-sci jargon and some algebra metaphors would give the added weight to your "expert opinion" and put me in my place. The thing is, though, I am not pretending to be an expert. I am just an average Joe-Shmoe who's totally at peace with the software, including all its _numerous_ flaws. All I did was say so and point out how your improved Nuendo UI was a little bit similar to the program you've used previously.

Sure, if Steinberg had a more "researched UI", I could have saved some hours learning it. No doubt. By the same token, you could have downloaded the free trial to research and discover you don't care one bit for its horrid, no-good UI. Not all is lost, though - you can easily sell it and save yourself countless wasteful hours learning it. 

But I really want to clarify something. I think it's totally OK to be biased and judgmental with GUI and workflow, even if you don't have multiple credentials to invoke. I have absolutely no problem with anything you say about Nuendo design. And any user who's passionate about their software and paid for it has a right to be highly involved, motivated and interested in how it evolves. There are a lot of very biased people on this forum and this is what makes it so special and so useful, at least in my opinion. I can't tell you how many times I've saved money just by listening to some very smart people here, both buying and steering clear of various libraries. 

Peace.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> I mean, I can see how subtle insinuations of my total ignorance, pop-sci jargon and some algebra metaphors would give the added weight to your "expert opinion" and put me in my place. The thing is, though, I am not pretending to be an expert. I am just an average Joe-Shmoe who's totally at peace with the software, including all its _numerous_ flaws. All I did was say so and point out how your improved Nuendo UI was a little bit similar to the program you've used previously.
> 
> Sure, if Steinberg had a more "researched UI", I could have saved some hours learning it. No doubt. By the same token, you could have downloaded the free trial to research and discover you don't care one bit for its horrid, no-good UI. Not all is lost, though - you can easily sell it and save yourself countless wasteful hours learning it.
> 
> ...


Eyeroll. The problem with your initial statement, previously, is that you framed this as a matter of "liking" something. One could improve the UI while still not finding it _interesting_. My discussion is not about something being liked. That's why I tried to clarify with you that there are other factors at hand other than whether it's "likable".

I also didn't argue against your "liking" of it. That doesn't negate objective aspects of it's poor communication. But yes, you're a humble, salt of earth, small-town composer offering your folksy opinion and I was throwing out loughty "opinions" regular people don't care about.


----------



## Wunderhorn (Nov 2, 2021)

As a professional in the design world I can only agree that the MS-DOS appeal of Cubase is not doing the user much of a favor. Liking it or not is not the issue. One can grow accustomed to it, yes.
It is that the usability itself is actually suffering from it when you can't read the tiny fonts under eye-sizzling contrasts with each panel being of the same visual priority all over the screen. And there is the logical workflow, coloring, and placements of elements that could benefit from putting some new thoughts into it.
An educated overhaul of the GUI could speed up working with it as well as enable newcomers to learn the application a lot faster.


----------



## quickbrownf0x (Nov 2, 2021)

Awesome to see a whole bunch of peers pop up on this forum and I can see where you guys are coming from. At the same time it's propably smart to not have too many assumptions on what a perfect UI looks like in this case, or in any case, really.

Then there are the issues of legacy, design debt, shifting goals, needs - all that. It'd be nice, tempting to just wipe the slate clean and start fresh, but that's often too much of a gamble.

Anyway, I think even though UI design is super cool, it's part of a larger puzzle, and it by itself shouldn't have final say in what a user needs. Especially if the answer to 'the why?' is 'well, someone posted this cool looking component on Dribbble' or 'well, that's how Google says you should do it'. I've fired designers for less. 

Anyway - never assume and stay humble. Realize that often you'll get it wrong. Your end users will surprise you. But that's actually the cool part.


----------



## darkogav (Nov 2, 2021)

I have been using Cubase for ages. I have no issue with the UI. I think one needs to keep in mind that this isn't just some newly made application that was made in last few years. It's a very complex application with a long history and lots of features and functionality as well as a large user base. They have to sort of appease everyone, as well as keep the application from breaking.


----------



## PaulieDC (Nov 2, 2021)

Zedcars said:


> I’m like this when I hear an inappropriate cue in a film/TV show or advert. Or if I hear a bad legato transition, or overly heavy percussion, or bad harmony choices. *Yeah, it’s unavoidable but in the end you just have to live with it.*


Like jump cuts and vertical video... ugh, nails on a chalkboard, lol.


----------



## Nico5 (Nov 2, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> Like ... vertical video... ugh, nails on a chalkboard, lol.


even that has it's place and time - it's just portrait vs landscape, and for some visuals portrait is more suitable than landscape. -- It's just that in the so called "good old days" we didn't have easily rotated display devices fitting into the palm of our hands.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

darkogav said:


> I have been using Cubase for ages. I have no issue with the UI. I think one needs to keep in mind that this isn't just some newly made application that was made in last few years. It's a very complex application with a long history and lots of features and functionality as well as a large user base. They have to sort of appease everyone, as well as keep the application from breaking.


Yes. "Fixing" it's UI would be a long, difficult process. However there are simple evident issues that can be quickly resolved. I'd love to get one of my grad students over there with some ideas.


----------



## PaulieDC (Nov 2, 2021)

Nico5 said:


> even that has it's place and time - it's just portrait vs landscape, and for some visuals portrait is more suitable than landscape. -- It's just that in the so called "good old days" we didn't have easily rotated display devices fitting into the palm of our hands.


That's true but big screens don't rotate, lol. It's not really about the good old days, it's about bad technique. We see peripherally which is why for video and film, landscape is the natural orientation. You see your monitor and you see a LOT to the right and left in your room, but you can't see more than 2-3 feet above your monitor. In any film-making effort, "motivation" is the driving factor because even a small error there affects the feel of the motion. Vertical video of any news item or activity shown on TV or PC, whatever, feels extremely confining, you ache to see what's right an left and it's a pretty bad user experience because you can't SEE what's happening... just saw a clip of a play in football from the stands somebody shot... was almost pointless to watch, the moment got missed, but it gets likes and all that. It's not that vertical video is a new and fresh thing, it's a result of not thinking, and like you said, portable devices becoming filming devices, and no more regard for the art of what makes cinematography work... look at the jump cuts in all of the "influencer" videos, it leaves you feeling jumpy and uneasy (no pun intended). No one is going to cut in B roll NOW, it's too time-consuming, why bother? Even Rick Beato does jump cuts, I want to smack him, lol! Look at ALL of the things that we hold dear in orchestral composition. We expect someone to make an effort to try and write a good section of music, why didn't anyone think to do this when video hit phones? I've done several video projects as both videographer and editor, I never once turned the DSLR on its side to shoot a scene, that would have been consider _ridiculous_, not forward and progressive. Jump cuts used to get you in trouble, now it's chic. So filming vertically became a natural thing because that's how we hold our phones and admittedly, the video looks fine in the phone, but what makes a great motion image of ANY sort work well isn't even considered any longer, in filming or editing. I know, this is subjective and you certainly don't have to agree. But we hold fast to certain things done correctly in orchestration because they work, and I'd argue that if the same attempt at disregard for the art of orchestration were executed in the same manner as what has been done to video, there'd be a firestorm on here. Let's start writing staff vertically, see how that works out for us.

Where's Jay Asher?? I need his totally unreserved back up here!! OK everyone, you can now fire back and tell me I'm bonkers. As if I didn't know that already.


PS: Nico, not fussing at you personally, the subject just fires me up. 

OK, sorry to the OP, back to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## jmauz (Nov 2, 2021)

You obviously possess the technical skills and necessary motivation required to greatly improve Cubase's UI. Great! I've been using Cubase for years and I agree the UI can be improved.

My question is this: Do you think you're providing value in this endeavor by spending time on a forum complaining and debating others? If you're such an expert and everything you believe is right, perhaps consider contacting Steinberg and offering your incredible services. If you need a contact let me know, I have friends who work there.

Less talk, more action.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 2, 2021)

jmauz said:


> You obviously possess the technical skills and necessary motivation required to greatly improve Cubase's UI. Great! I've been using Cubase for years and I agree the UI can be improved.
> 
> My question is this: Do you think you're providing value in this endeavor by spending time on a forum complaining and debating others? If you're such an expert and everything you believe is right, perhaps consider contacting Steinberg and offering your incredible services. If you need a contact let me know, I have friends who work there.
> 
> Less talk, more action.


Your sarcasm is weird. Why?

In general these companies are not concerned with one single voice. If we wanted it to change it would have to be many users making the demand. To a certain extent that doesn't happen because people get used to how things are and are not sure how things could be different without first experiencing it.

So trying to convince users to make more demands of the company is useful.


----------



## Nico5 (Nov 2, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> That's true but big screens don't rotate, lol. It's not really about the good old days, it's about bad technique. We see peripherally which is why for video and film, landscape is the natural orientation. You see your monitor and you see a LOT to the right and left in your room, but you can't see more than 2-3 feet above your monitor. In any film-making effort, "motivation" is the driving factor because even a small error there affects the feel of the motion. Vertical video of any news item or activity shown on TV or PC, whatever, feels extremely confining, you ache to see what's right an left and it's a pretty bad user experience because you can't SEE what's happening... just saw a clip of a play in football from the stands somebody shot... was almost pointless to watch, the moment got missed, but it gets likes and all that. It's not that vertical video is a new and fresh thing, it's a result of not thinking, and like you said, portable devices becoming filming devices, and no more regard for the art of what makes cinematography work... look at the jump cuts in all of the "influencer" videos, it leaves you feeling jumpy and uneasy (no pun intended). No one is going to cut in B roll NOW, it's too time-consuming, why bother? Even Rick Beato does jump cuts, I want to smack him, lol! Look at ALL of the things that we hold dear in orchestral composition. We expect someone to make an effort to try and write a good section of music, why didn't anyone think to do this when video hit phones? I've done several video projects as both videographer and editor, I never once turned the DSLR on its side to shoot a scene, that would have been consider _ridiculous_, not forward and progressive. Jump cuts used to get you in trouble, now it's chic. So filming vertically became a natural thing because that's how we hold our phones and admittedly, the video looks fine in the phone, but what makes a great motion image of ANY sort work well isn't even considered any longer, in filming or editing. I know, this is subjective and you certainly don't have to agree. But we hold fast to certain things done correctly in orchestration because they work, and I'd argue that if the same attempt at disregard for the art of orchestration were executed in the same manner as what has been done to video, there'd be a firestorm on here.
> 
> Where's Jay Asher?? I need his totally unreserved back up here!! OK everyone, you can now fire back and tell me I'm bonkers. As if I didn't know that already.
> 
> ...


no offense taken. 

And I agree with the examples you mentioned. And I also agree with your statement that landscape is the natural video format. I also didn't argue with your complaint about jump cuts in my prior comment, so no need to defend that as far as I'm concerned. I hate them, too, and I think they're just lazy.

But I did disagree with the apparent absolutism of your original post about vertical video in general.

I think if the subject scene is truly portrait and you want to minimize undesired imagery while maximizing the useful pixel resolution of your imagery, then portrait video can be as valid as portrait photography. 

I don't think that's the majority of cases and I do think that most people shooting video with their phones don't even think about turning to landscape, when the subject scene really calls for it. And yes, I think it should be most of the time, and I have been annoying friends and family regularly to turn their phones sideways, when they were shooting landscape scenes (pictures or video).

However, I also think that some of the annoyance with vertical video is caused by at least equal thoughtlessness / laziness of the playback presentation, which often should be more professional individuals than amateur phone videographers.

For example, if vertical footage is then being used by a TV station, they shouldn't be so damn lazy and make that footage full screen with stupid blurry sides that they often (mostly?) do. A more sensible option would be to display that video to the side of the landscape TV broadcast and put some relevant text info in the remaining space. There's almost always something useful that could be put there.

Similar with websites. If a website is landscape, put something relevant next to the video.

But when the video subject scene is portrait, then a portrait video is much more pleasant on a phone typically held vertically by default. 

And in a well designed website, the content automatically adjusts ("responsive design"), depending on the view window of the display device. So the relevant info associated with the video would would end up being next to the video, if the target display is landscape, and it would be above or below the video, if the target display is portrait.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment that most videos should be landscape, but it's not 100%. And I also think there's playback thoughtlessness. 

And death to jump cuts!!


----------



## Nico5 (Nov 2, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Your sarcasm is weird. Why?
> 
> In general these companies are not concerned with one single voice. If we wanted it to change it would have to be many users making the demand. To a certain extent that doesn't happen because people get used to how things are and are not sure how things could be different without first experiencing it.
> 
> So trying to convince users to make more demands of the company is useful.


I have to admit, I'm also somewhat bewildered by this thread. Not because I think that Cubase is particularly perfect (I probably have more annoyances with Cubase than you, since I've used it for about 20 years by now). But I'm more bewildered by the fact that this thread is here, rather than where more Cubase users congregate (at the Steinberg Forums). And I'm also bewildered by the tone you seem to have struck. 

Some of your statements in this thread have come across (at least to my obviously subjective reading) as absolutist, simplistic and dare I say, ivory-towerish without realistic grounding in operating in an incredibly imperfect world with imperfect history, imperfect designers (who often disagree with each other) imperfect programmers, imperfect managers, imperfect investors and imperfect users. 

Actually effecting meaningful change in such an imperfect world is a humbling experience difficult to reconcile perfectly with the ideals one rightfully pursues and teaches. I have more related scars from my working life than I care to remember.

So you might have more success as a true agent of change for the better, if you dial the tone down a bit, pick just a few very specific glaring items for improvement, and attract wider agreement in places where you find a real congregation of Nuendo and Cubase users as well as occasionally lurking Steinberg employees.


----------



## PaulieDC (Nov 6, 2021)

Nico5 said:


> even that has it's place and time - it's just portrait vs landscape, and for some visuals portrait is more suitable than landscape. -- It's just that in the so called "good old days" we didn't have easily rotated display devices fitting into the palm of our hands.


SO! I found a video that would not have worked in landscape mode to see what happens. 




The birds flying by after the thunder look like TIE Fighters after the strike, lol.


----------



## Franco Bollo (Nov 6, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I just mocked this up. Here are key things I want to point out:
> 
> - We deal with complex software
> - Designed things need to communicate how we use them. What is it designed for?
> ...


That is very tasteful indeed. (I'm saying this in my Patrick Bateman business card scene voice now)


----------



## AudioLoco (Nov 6, 2021)

Been using Cubase and other software for two decades.
I see nothing wrong with the design of the UI and my eyes hurt only because I have been staring at the screen for 12 hours yesterday.

There might be a lot of room for improvements - no doubt, all welcome, and it is interesting to read suggestions - but there is no dramatic "problem" and people are scoring movies and making records on the software every single day.


----------



## greggybud (Nov 6, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> In general these companies are not concerned with one single voice.


As a beta tester I would disagree. 


estevancarlos said:


> If we wanted it to change it would have to be many users making the demand.


Making a _demand_, especially on this topic would seem an _unwise_ choice. A _request_ with reasonable explanation yes, in the Cubase public forum under feature requests...or general. Or send it to a Steinberg reprenentative.


estevancarlos said:


> To a certain extent that doesn't happen because people get used to how things are and are not sure how things could be different without first experiencing it.


True. But IMO considering the limited resources Steinberg has, market research, and future DAW objectives based on the competitive environment, I think Steinberg has the best idea regarding the allocation of their resources. Different user groups want different things. And simple fixes are sometimes very complex. This is a very mature program built on many different levels over a long period of time. After a while you see trends regarding common issues but keep in mind a forum represents just a small fraction of the total user base. I have seen very few complaints or feature requests about your topic.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Nico5 said:


> I have to admit, I'm also somewhat bewildered by this thread. Not because I think that Cubase is particularly perfect (I probably have more annoyances with Cubase than you, since I've used it for about 20 years by now). But I'm more bewildered by the fact that this thread is here, rather than where more Cubase users congregate (at the Steinberg Forums). And I'm also bewildered by the tone you seem to have struck.
> 
> Some of your statements in this thread have come across (at least to my obviously subjective reading) as absolutist, simplistic and dare I say, ivory-towerish without realistic grounding in operating in an incredibly imperfect world with imperfect history, imperfect designers (who often disagree with each other) imperfect programmers, imperfect managers, imperfect investors and imperfect users.
> 
> ...


The tone of my text is not the same as the tone I'm expressing in reality. These sort of mixed connections and misreading online happen all the time. My tone, here at the computer, is more along the lines of _obsessive_. I've had no intent of being "rude" to anyone.

The "absolutism" is more along the lines of "probability" based on recently established understanding and some years of collective research. There's nothing absolute here but I understand that it comes off that way.

Additionally some respondents are confusing aesthetic preference from other concerns. It makes perfect sense that people may like how Cubase looks but I'm not focused on whether Cubase is pretty (necessarily). I mentioned in another post that Cubase could be boring but still have a better UI. The aesthetic qualities can come after the other issues.

The responses I've recieved make me think of a scenario I have in class every semester.

I ask students if they believe a user interface has ever tricked them into doing something they didn't intend to do without them knowing. Very few students will raise their hands. Most won't. Then I describe the concept known as a "dark pattern" to them. A dark pattern is an _intentionally _manipulative UI/UX that misleads the user. Afterwards students will grin and realize they have been tricked before. These dark patterns use color, shapes, visual hierarchy, etc.

Cubase isn't doing that intentionally. Instead Cubase just has a disorganized UI/UX that contributes to a more complicated learning experience and missed opportunities for better clarity. The failures in a software like this are not dramatically different from what may happen in a dark pattern. The intentions are different. Steinberg means well.

Much of what I'm talking about has nothing to do with whether any of us _*like *_how it looks (even though I don't necessarily like it). What I've been trying to discuss is how the bad UI/UX is, unbeknownst to some, causing friction, confusion, and unnecessarily complicates the experience and learning process.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

greggybud said:


> As a beta tester I would disagree.
> 
> Making a _demand_, especially on this topic would seem an _unwise_ choice. A _request_ with reasonable explanation yes, in the Cubase public forum under feature requests...or general. Or send it to a Steinberg reprenentative.
> 
> True. But IMO considering the limited resources Steinberg has, market research, and future DAW objectives based on the competitive environment, I think Steinberg has the best idea regarding the allocation of their resources. Different user groups want different things. And simple fixes are sometimes very complex. This is a very mature program built on many different levels over a long period of time. After a while you see trends regarding common issues but keep in mind a forum represents just a small fraction of the total user base. I have seen very few complaints or feature requests about your topic.


I think the reason we don't hear complaints about this topic is because it's not a very understood topic. It's a somewhat under the hood topic. It's similar to how some of us may watch a movie. We listen to the sound and music. We're impacted by it. Our experience of film is moved by it. However, someone else won't remember the score OR sound.

The end result is this: Was the person who didn't consciously notice the score or sound influenced in any way by it? The answer is likely yes.

So that's why a lot of people don't talk about it. How does one discuss it outside of "I like how it looks" or "I don't like how it looks"? Either way, the way the UI/UX functions still influences user behavior.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I just mocked this up. Here are key things I want to point out:
> 
> - We deal with complex software
> - Designed things need to communicate how we use them. What is it designed for?
> ...


If you like this look, switch to Logic Pro....that's pretty much what it looks like. Problem solved.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> If you like this look, switch to Logic Pro....that's pretty much what it looks like. Problem solved.



I'm not sure how that resolves Cubase itself?

Anyway, my quick mockup was just made to demonstrate a few concepts relating to visual hierarchy. Here's a video that gives a nice summary on the topic.


----------



## Dietz (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I'm not sure how that resolves Cubase itself?
> 
> Anyway, my quick mockup was just made to demonstrate a few concepts relating to visual hierarchy. Here's a video that gives a nice summary on the topic.



I'm sure he's bright when it comes to visuals, but someone should tell him about auditory hierarchy, too. ;-D


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Franco Bollo said:


> That is very tasteful indeed. (I'm saying this in my Patrick Bateman business card scene voice now)


It's just a 20min mockup. Unfortunately I may be so obsessed with this topic that your comparison is apt.


----------



## Josha (Nov 10, 2021)

I totally agree the UI needs a lot of help. Thanks for some insights into why. There's a thread from just the other day of why people left Cubase and the most common reason seems to be "overwhelmed". 
I think my biggest peeve is with cryptic icons and inconsistencies between the windows, but I haven't compiled a list of issues. 

And to those saying "just live with it".... If you can't have a good rant on VI-Control, where then???


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Josha said:


> I totally agree the UI needs a lot of help. Thanks for some insights into why. There's a thread from just the other day of why people left Cubase and the most common reason seems to be "overwhelmed".
> I think my biggest peeve is with cryptic icons and inconsistencies between the windows, but I haven't compiled a list of issues.
> 
> And to those saying "just live with it".... If you can't have a good rant on VI-Control, where then???



"Overwhelmed" is such a good word.
What we need to ask is "What overwhelmed them?"

I mentioned an example in an earlier post about the experience of watching film. Some people will go into a movie. They will feel overwhelmed but they won't know why. Was it the narrative? The sound and score? The colors and lights?

It's not immediately evident and many of us won't have the language. The same applies here (despite some disbelief). UI/UX relates to cognitive load theory. It can overwhelm, mislead, cause friction.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I'm not sure how that resolves Cubase itself?
> 
> Anyway, my quick mockup was just made to demonstrate a few concepts relating to visual hierarchy. Here's a video that gives a nice summary on the topic.



Switching to Logic Pro (in this case) doesn't resolve Cubase itself, but I can assure you that after two decades Steinberg isn't going to change the UI anytime soon (unfortunately). In the big scheme of things, it's really small beans. Cubase is a powerful DAW, which far outweighs minor aesthetics IMO.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

ka00 said:


> You could make a video like this and make it go viral. Then maybe we can “resolve” Cubase itself. Short of that, I don’t think it will happen.



That video. Wow. Damn.

I'm new to Cubase so I don't really know their history. If it's decades of stubbornness and bad UI then you may have a point BUT it is often about the user base. More users can and should demand better.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> "Overwhelmed" is such a good word.
> What we need to ask is "What overwhelmed them?"
> 
> I mentioned an example in an earlier post about the experience of watching film. Some people will go into a movie. They will feel overwhelmed but they won't know why. Was it the narrative? The sound and score? The colors and lights?
> ...



I actually think Cubase's UI is pretty good and beautiful and useable... But I guess I'm alone in this.

There are areas, yes. But on the whole, I find it a very pleasing DAW since version 10.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Switching to Logic Pro (in this case) doesn't resolve Cubase itself, but I can assure you that after two decades Steinberg isn't going to change the UI anytime soon (unfortunately). In the big scheme of things, it's really small beans. Cubase is a powerful DAW, which far outweighs minor aesthetics IMO.


I'm not discussing aesthetics.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I'm not discussing aesthetics.



I can assure you it is perfectly workable. Used it for years and years. It's fine.

Sounds to me like you're nitpicking the everliving hell out of this.

Also, sorry to say it, but your mockup was very... Eh.... If I see that throughout a whole interface, I wouldn't know where to click. Too generic, too flat. No discerning elements. So, I guess I mean to say, whatever expertise you give here, you're mockup kinda sucks.

So I guess Steinberg's UI designers do kinda know what they're doing...


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


> I can assure you it is perfectly workable. Used it for years and years. It's fine.
> 
> Sounds to me like you're nitpicking the everliving hell out of this.
> 
> Also, sorry to say it, but your mockup was very... Eh....


I'm very preoccupied with the topic yes. 100%. It's fine if it's not important. It isn't the most important thing in many contexts. However, because it's not a common topic there's often a misunderstanding as to what I'm talking about at all. For example, multiple people still think i'm talking about "aesthetics" when I've been discussing experience, user behavior, and comprehension.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I'm very preoccupied with the topic yes. 100%. It's fine if it's not important. It isn't the most important thing in many contexts. However, because it's not a common topic there's often a misunderstanding as to what I'm talking about at all. For example, multiple people still think i'm talking about "aesthetics" when I've been discussing experience, user behavior, and comprehension.



Well discussing usability I wouldn't want it to look like your mockup because then I wouldn't know where to click because I can't see clear enough what is important.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


> I can assure you it is perfectly workable. Used it for years and years. It's fine.
> 
> Sounds to me like you're nitpicking the everliving hell out of this.
> 
> ...


I made the mockup in 20mins in order to describe a few key things mentioned in my bullet points. It does not look great, the mockup. I wasn't trying to make it look great. I wanted to talk about the topic of hierarchy and focus.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


> Well discussing usability I wouldn't want it to look like your mockup because then I wouldn't know where to click because I can't see clear enough what is important.


Completely agree. In a usability testing we would test out different amounts of contrast in order to find the right amount. It is important. When I look at back the mockup I would make some colors brighter to enhance clarity of what is in "focus".


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I made the mockup in 20mins in order to describe a few key things mentioned in my bullet points. It does not look great, the mockup. I wasn't trying to make it look great. I wanted to talk about the topic of hierarchy and focus.



Yes but I think the hierarchy of focus in Cubase as it is right now is pretty good.

It was best in 6 though.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

Btw if we're talking about DAW UI I think Reason comes out on top and it's not even a contest between it and ANY other DAW.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


> Yes but I think the hierarchy of focus in Cubase as it is right now is pretty good.
> 
> It was best in 6 though.


Cubase uses strokes and outlines to convey everything. Lines are bright. Things that are OUT OF FOCUS are still brightly colored. So their attempt and communicating what is important through a color contrast is inconsistent.

In the screenshot I've attached, the white stroke shows that the inspector is in focus. This probably a flat, brightest white possible. What else is the brightest white possible?

- All the track names
- The ruler numbers
- All the icons
- A thin stroke around midi clips

The problem of using so many strokes as well as it's a missed opportunity to use other means of communicating hierarchy such as depth. The amount of pixel space the stroke takes up adds to a perception of density. Eventually you run of pixel space and so you have to squeeze information within it.

If we count the amount of horizontal space used by the white and gray strokes around the inspector and main region then we about 16 pixels. Instead of using a stroke they could instead create stronger contrasting backgrounds between what is in focus vs out of focus. The additional pixel space could be used to add something we can call padding/negative space around some of the critical UI information (text, buttons, etc). In other words can be used to create breathing room which will reduce visual density.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


> Btw if we're talking about DAW UI I think Reason comes out on top and it's not even a contest between it and ANY other DAW.


I barely consider it a DAW so that's probably why I don't talk about it. Yes. Their overemphasis on entertaining skeuomorphism is silly. Some skeuomorphism is good but they make it look like a video game (which may be the intention).


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Cubase uses strokes and outlines to convey everything. Lines are bright. Things that are OUT OF FOCUS are still brightly colored. So their attempt and communicating what is important through a color contrast is inconsistent.
> 
> In the screenshot I've attached, the white stroke shows that the inspector is in focus. This probably a flat, brightest white possible. What else is the brightest white possible?
> 
> ...


I changed this to an orange color. You can change it.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I barely consider it a DAW so that's probably why I don't talk about it. Yes. Their overemphasis on entertaining skeuomorphism is silly. Some skeuomorphism is good but they make it look like a video game (which may be the intention).



It is immediately usable though...


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


> It is immediately usable though...


The skeuomorphism does have an impact. For many people it's an easier way to understand unfamiliar concepts. I can't offer an opinion on Reason because I haven't touched it in forever.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 10, 2021)




----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 10, 2021)

Crossroads said:


>



This guy is doing god's work.


----------



## dterry (Nov 10, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> Cubase uses strokes and outlines to convey everything. Lines are bright. Things that are OUT OF FOCUS are still brightly colored. So their attempt and communicating what is important through a color contrast is inconsistent.
> 
> In the screenshot I've attached, the white stroke shows that the inspector is in focus. This probably a flat, brightest white possible. What else is the brightest white possible?


You can change the focus color within a spectral range for a given color. You also have control over quite a few other color selections. 

In my experience using most of these at one time or another for audio and music (rather than eye candy), they all have graphics imperfections - ProTools, Studio One, Digital Performer, Samplitude, Cubase, etc.


----------



## Crossroads (Nov 11, 2021)

dterry said:


> You can change the focus color within a spectral range for a given color. You also have control over quite a few other color selections.
> 
> In my experience using most of these at one time or another for audio and music (rather than eye candy), they all have graphics imperfections - ProTools, Studio One, Digital Performer, Samplitude, Cubase, etc.



Indeed, they all do. For example, Studio One is supposed to be better, but it's so bland as to be distracting to me. I do have ADD though so I dunno.


----------



## RogiervG (Nov 11, 2021)

I am sorry @op:
but...(with due respect)

UX is a very vague subject: one designer does this, the other that.. both are right about how good or bad it is. Your opinion is just yours.. you as UX teacher, are not speaking for all UX designers/experts/teachers.. there are many visions on the subject.

I've seen "good" designs from UX professionals (RC prototypes), and it was THE thing that would take care of all bad designs...
however, nobody liked it, and did not found it easy to navigate in, nobody, except the designer.

Taste is subjective, visuals included. (you like it or you don't)

TLDR: just learn to coop with it, or swap DAW for one that suits you better, UX wise.


----------



## Pier (Nov 11, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I think what bothers me is that I spent a lot of money for software with poor UI and I know they have the budget to hire two graduate students from my university to do a better job. Additionally a good UI/UX can improve cognitive load and comprehension. When you have improved cognitive load it can influence output--in our case musical output.
> 
> This annoys me because... Steinberg should know this.


Sure, two interns should be able to produce a better UI design, but that's not even 0.1% of the actual job.

The challenge is actually implementing a new design into a massive codebase (which is probably decades old at this point with multiple GUI paradigms), how to fit that massive load of work into the roadmap, and how to adapt the workflow of a software company that is almost 40 years old at this point.

And there's the business angle too. What would be the cost/benefit of investing such a massive and expensive undertaking? I don't know, but I wouldn't presume to know the financials of Steinberg.


----------



## greggybud (Nov 11, 2021)

Pier said:


> Sure, two interns should be able to produce a better UI design, but that's not even 0.1% of the actual job.
> 
> The challenge is actually implementing a new design into a massive codebase (which is probably decades old at this point with multiple GUI paradigms), how to fit that massive load of work into the roadmap, and how to adapt the workflow of a software company that is almost 40 years old at this point.
> 
> And there's the business angle too. What would be the cost/benefit of investing such a massive and expensive undertaking? I don't know, but I wouldn't presume to know the financials of Steinberg.


I think you're on to something here. 

I think a LOT of feature requests and a LOT of issues are hampered by what is actually do-able knowing every developer has a limited amount of resources, a lot of it...money. And some appear to be very "simple" yet they are not. It's easy to fall in this trap when looking for the outside in. 

Do users know how long its taken to get the wrapping of track names in the mix console back from several years ago? That was not only an application issue, but Windows OS too.

Again, if you were starting from the ground up, it would be visual utopia....at least for a while.


----------



## Pier (Nov 11, 2021)

greggybud said:


> Again, if you were starting from the ground up, it would be visual utopia....at least for a while.


The issue is that 20 years ago most UIs were built for 72dpi monitors using bitmaps. It was an easy GUI paradigm. Think Winamp for example.

These days, we need resolution independent UIs because some users are on 1080p monitors, some are on 4K monitors, in a couple of years some users will be on 8K monitors, etc. This means tons of new challenges from performance stuff, to UX, etc.

Cubase probably has a Frankenstein code regarding the UI which has become super difficult to evolve.

This goes to show how visionary U-He is. Zebra had resolution independent scalable UI 15 years ago.


----------



## Tralen (Nov 11, 2021)

Pier said:


> Cubase probably has a Frankenstein code regarding the UI which has become super difficult to evolve.


There is also the issue of forcing the userbase to evolve. I mean, the most loyal users are exactly the ones that are already trained and accustomed to the current workflow and UI.

I don't know if Steinberg gains much by making major reformulations at this point in time.


----------



## dterry (Nov 11, 2021)

Pier said:


> Cubase probably has a Frankenstein code regarding the UI which has become super difficult to evolve.


At one time that was likely true, but I don't think the current GUI is still reliant on old graphics. I don't remember exactly which, but a recent version did migrate to a new system precisely to allow high DPI scaling. 

Another aspect some may not realize is that Cubase and Nuendo have a visually impaired customer base, need to work on touch screens, and have the mixer consoles scale properly on 24" monitors to visually line up with Nuage faders. 

The best looking graphics in Photoshop or Illustrator may not even be functional for someone who can't see most of what is there, much less be bothered by an outline. Also what works in a graphics design program seldom translates 1:1 into software unless you load up the application with gigabytes of bitmaps, or use a lot of processing resources that could go to better audio and DSP performance.

DP is still chained to a 25 year old bitmapped design. They only added 2x bitmaps to scale better a few versions back. But it still scores a lot of films.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 11, 2021)

Pier said:


> Sure, two interns should be able to produce a better UI design, but that's not even 0.1% of the actual job.
> 
> The challenge is actually implementing a new design into a massive codebase (which is probably decades old at this point with multiple GUI paradigms), how to fit that massive load of work into the roadmap, and how to adapt the workflow of a software company that is almost 40 years old at this point.
> 
> And there's the business angle too. What would be the cost/benefit of investing such a massive and expensive undertaking? I don't know, but I wouldn't presume to know the financials of Steinberg.


I don't know their financials but IF they need more adoption from new users, the usability improvements _could _help out with that. It's possible that's not an issue.

Having dealt with some software development over years, I suspect that there are manageable color coding/visual hierarchy improvements they could make with limited investment. However yes, there's lots of additional things they have to address that could cost a lot.

In another post I described once working at a business that spent years adding "features". Before they knew it they had so many features it was hard to manage that codebase and legacy code. They created features in order to draw in more users. This became untenable because the end result was this:

- A small, vocal, percentage of users loved X feature
- X feature contained bugs and usability problems
- It was not financially advantageous to update X feature if only 1% of the users used it
- X feature became untouched
- There were dozens of 'X' features that were barely updated
- It added up into an increasing usability mess

I don't know where Steinberg is with this but I fear that's a part of the problem they have to handle. The usability (UI/UX) problems they have may be symptoms of software cruft. When I worked at my previous company the conversation was like this:

"Should we fix the UI/UX of X feature?"
"Well, do we actually want to keep maintaining that feature in the first place?"
"Yeah, can we afford it or should it be reimagined from the ground up?"

*Anyway*, I do think there are small meaningful changes they can make that don't need to confront the larger questions asked above.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 11, 2021)

greggybud said:


> Again, if you were starting from the ground up, it would be visual utopia....at least for a while.


I want to stress that I don't care too much about whether Cubase looks good, pretty, or cool. My frustration is that it communicates poorly. For example, Adobe Photoshop looks boring but communicates pretty well.


----------



## dterry (Nov 11, 2021)

estevancarlos said:


> I want to stress that I don't care too much about whether Cubase looks good, pretty, or cool. My frustration is that it communicates poorly. For example, Adobe Photoshop looks boring but communicates pretty well.


And I would disagree on Photoshop. Despite it having fewer features than Photoshop, Affinity Photo is more intuitive and has a more intuitive, natural workflow (layers, history, and several tools). Just goes to show that there are very few absolutes in graphics design. There have been many national ad campaigns produced by top design companies that are hideous and/or fail miserably to even divulge the product being sold.

There are times I want to adjust some minor aspect of Nuendo, but I've tweaked the color scheme and have had no problems spending 16-20 hours a day working with it during feature-deadlines. This forum's text is brighter and harder on the eyes than Nuendo's.


----------



## Fidelity (Nov 11, 2021)

dterry said:


> And I would disagree on Photoshop. Despite it having fewer features than Photoshop, Affinity Photo is more intuitive and has a more intuitive, natural workflow (layers, history, and several tools). Just goes to show that there are very few absolutes in graphics design. There have been many national ad campaigns produced by top design companies that are hideous and/or fail miserably to even divulge the product being sold.
> 
> There are times I want to adjust some minor aspect of Nuendo, but I've tweaked the color scheme and have had no problems spending 16-20 hours a day working with it during feature-deadlines. This forum's text is brighter and harder on the eyes than Nuendo's.


I would have to disagree with your disagreement. I bought affinity a few months ago and have used it only once during a test run...wasn't thrilled with the workflow, though maybe that's all the years I've spent with PS talking.


----------



## estevancarlos (Nov 11, 2021)

dterry said:


> And I would disagree on Photoshop. Despite it having fewer features than Photoshop, Affinity Photo is more intuitive and has a more intuitive, natural workflow (layers, history, and several tools). Just goes to show that there are very few absolutes in graphics design. There have been many national ad campaigns produced by top design companies that are hideous and/or fail miserably to even divulge the product being sold.
> 
> There are times I want to adjust some minor aspect of Nuendo, but I've tweaked the color scheme and have had no problems spending 16-20 hours a day working with it during feature-deadlines. This forum's text is brighter and harder on the eyes than Nuendo's.


Yes. Affinity is great. I used to use it. I would STILL use it but I have to teach Adobe Suite.

Putting that aside I was trying to compare the dilemma of old software. Cubase and Photoshop are both old. I think Photoshop has made meaningful improvements over 10 years and has managed to not be as messy as is possible.


----------

