# "This UI Design is CHAOTIC EVIL!"



## Robin Thompson

Griping about Spitfire's UI is nothing new, but I had to pass along this excellent video by IDDQD Sound for giving the problems with LABS such a succinct and good-humored roasting. Only Spitfire can actually relieve my frustrations, but at least this video gave me some catharsis.


----------



## Markrs

Robin Thompson said:


> Griping about Spitfire's UI is nothing new, but I had to pass along this excellent video by IDDQD Sound for giving the problems with LABS such a succinct and good-humored roasting. Only Spitfire can actually relieve my frustrations, but at least this video gave me some catharsis.



It is also a great Reaper YouTube channel with lots and lots of tips!


----------



## cel4145

Yep. The Spitfire interface looks like it was designed by a graphic designer who was only focused on the aesthetic appeal.

I know these plugin manufacturers can't necessarily afford to keep a UX expert on the payroll full time. But at the very least, they could certainly hire a UX consultant to give feedback a couple of times during the development process. A lot of the issues with Spitfire are immediately obvious to anyone with visual design experience focused on usability.

Then again, with Kontakt's clunky old interface holding the largest market share for sample library instruments, I'm sure Spitfire thought they just needed to make their interface look better, without thinking about fine-tuning the usability of the instrument.


----------



## vitocorleone123

cel4145 said:


> Yep. The Spitfire interface looks like it was designed by a graphic designer who was only focused on the aesthetic appeal.
> 
> I know these plugin manufacturers can't necessarily afford to keep a UX expert on the payroll full time. But at the very least, they could certainly hire a UX consultant to give feedback a couple of times during the development process. A lot of the issues with Spitfire are immediately obvious to anyone with visual design experience focused on usability.
> 
> Then again, with Kontakt's clunky old interface holding the largest market share for sample library instruments, I'm sure Spitfire thought they just needed to make their interface look better, without thinking about fine-tuning the usability of the instrument.


They at least need to get one of the front end developers to get a certificate in user experience design. Just adhering to some basic, fundamental, long-known principles and practices could lead to a vast improvement (after all, going from nothing to something is bigger than something to something more).


----------



## NekujaK

Something inside me dies a little everytime I use the Spitfire player GUI.



​


----------



## davidson

Sometimes when I'm feeling a little too happy, I use the spitfire player and sine for a while, just to bring me back down to earth.


----------



## Pier

I really don't see the problem.

Users will open the plugin, select an instrument, close the plugin window, and probably never open it again. There's no wasting because there's nothing else competing for that space.

So not only there is no need to optimize that space, but Spitfire most likely used that aspect ratio to keep it consistent with all their other products.

Amazing to think someone would spend a couple of hours of their life to record and edit that video.


----------



## NekujaK

Pier said:


> I really don't see the problem.
> 
> Users will open the plugin, select an instrument, close the plugin window, and probably never open it again. There's no wasting because there's nothing else competing for that space.
> 
> So not only there is no need to optimize that space, but Spitfire most likely used that aspect ratio to keep it consistent with all their other products.
> 
> Amazing to think someone would spend a couple of hours of their life to record and edit that video.


Clearly, there are fans of the Spitfire UI out there, which is great. I can't speak for others, but for me, the UI inhibits workflow in the most frustrating of ways. I posted a mini-rant about this in another thread a while back, so I'm not going to rehash that.

But I do want to mention that an instrument UI is more than just "set it and forget it". I may not necessarily want to make tweaks, but simply view the current settings. The Spitfire UI makes that impossible at a glance. I need to click each parameter in that big blank space on the right to pull up the individual settings.

Compare this to the Kontakt interface that older Spitfire libraries have. They're actually not that great either, but at least I can open one up and see all my articulation options, reverb, mic, etc. settings at a glance without having to spend extra clicks to view them on a one-by-one basis.

In the grand scheme of things, clearly this is not a showstopper. But it's one of several UI shortcomings that become annoying little speedbumps in my workflow. And the frustrating thing is, they're all easy problems to fix!

But that's just me...


----------



## Nimrod7

There are so many things that are hard,

Sampling instruments is extremely hard,
Processing thousands of samples an art
Developing a high performance plugin is insanely hard

I have three machines here, and I went through the spitfire install process in the video multiple times, it started hitting my nerves, seriously.

I don't get it, thumbnails are easy, you just need a good designer. What they do with piano book is madness indeed.
Building a plugin UI that make sense is also easy if you get the right person.

The tasks I highlighted in the beginning of the post are way harder both to find people that know how to do them well, and the effort required.


----------



## Pier

NekujaK said:


> But I do want to mention that an instrument UI is more than just "set it and forget it".


On Spitfire Labs? I mean, what else are you going to do?


----------



## NekujaK

Pier said:


> On Spitfire Labs? I mean, what else are you going to do?


Ah, didn't realize the video is only about Spitfire Labs (didn't actually watch it). But still, many of the Labs instruments have multiple settings:






It's a bit ridiciulous that I need to click four different buttons to access ADSR settings. Looking at this screen I have no idea what the envelope settings are. I can't even see what Reverb is set to without clicking something. Ugh.


----------



## Pier

NekujaK said:


> It's a bit ridiciulous that I need to click four different buttons to access ADSR settings. Looking at this screen I have no idea what the envelope settings are. I can't even see what Reverb is set to without clicking something. Ugh.


Yeah this is bad 

But my comment was just about the "wasted space" argument of the video.


----------



## NekujaK

Pier said:


> Yeah this is bad
> 
> But my comment was just about the "wasted space" argument of the video.


Fair enough. I guess I'll have to watch the video


----------



## Robin Thompson

Pier said:


> Yeah this is bad
> 
> But my comment was just about the "wasted space" argument of the video.


But this IS the wasted space argument, or at least a large portion of it. Plenty of LABS instruments have a number of settings all buried under that one giant button, and it makes the wasted blank space all the more infuriating because it could have been put to good use foregrounding all that stuff. It's not blank space because they don't have anything to put there. It's blank because they don't want functionality interfering with the aesthetics.

Not to mention that all the failings of the LABS UI carry over to BBCSO, EWC, and all the other "pro" plugins, along with added frustrations like the lack of global purge (I mean, LABS lacks it too, but it doesn't really matter there).


----------



## Pier

Robin Thompson said:


> But this IS the wasted space argument, or at least a large portion of it. Plenty of LABS instruments have a number of settings all buried under that one giant button, and it makes the wasted blank space all the more infuriating because it could have been put to good use foregrounding all that stuff. It's not blank space because they don't have anything to put there. It's blank because they don't want functionality interfering with the aesthetics.


I think you're arguing about a different thing.

The video goes on about reducing the empty space wasted and the youtuber even makes an ugly mockup to make a point. Basically the youtuber seems to have an irrational hate against empty space. This is what I'm arguing about.

You seem to be arguing about the lack of features. Of course they could have put more stuff in the empty space but it's a free product after all. AFAIK the player is developed by UsTwo which could explain why they didn't put more effort into their LABS series. Spitfire is not a tech company after all.


----------



## Pier

Also, as a side note, I don't think the Youtuber understands what "chaotic evil" means 😂

Source: I played D&D for many years.


----------



## Robin Thompson

I also have D'd the D, as apparently has Arya (the youtuber in question) according to his comments. But that's neither here nor there. And no, I'm not even slightly saying anything about a lack of features (in LABS). To the contrary, the instruments have plenty of features! It just doesn't expose them! You can only see/adjust one at a time. Which _sucks_. And making good use of that empty space would be a great solution. The video makes the same point, though it, yes, also attacks the empty space from other angles. Along with plenty of other valid issues unrelated to space.


----------



## Virtuoso

The wasted space issue is much more apparent on the Pro libraries like BBCSO and EWC where you have to page left and right several times to select articulations or mics, when they could have laid them all out on one page.

As for the Manager app, there are a few things not mentioned in the video which grind my gears:-

1. The 'Installed' button doesn't show the libraries that you currently have installed on the machine you're using. It shows EVERY library you've EVER installed on ANY machine. So mine claims that all the old BML libraries are installed, even though I stopped using them years ago and have never installed them on my current Mac.

2. When you resize the app window, it just scales all the thumbnails up. Personally I would prefer to see more libraries (and hence have less scrolling) than larger thumbnails.

3. There's no Update All button, so you have to click each component for every library that needs updating. And you'd better pray it doesn't trigger the dreaded repair/reset/lock-out hassle.


----------



## LatinXCombo

Oh.

For a moment I thought this thread was about Salesforce Pulse. 

Never mind.


----------



## Trash Panda

ADSR envelope controls are only a convenient 12 clicks away. 🤣


----------



## psy dive




----------



## psy dive

Trash Panda said:


> ADSR envelope controls are only a convenient 12 clicks away. 🤣


madness.. and why make a giant knobo with which you have to switch direction halfway trough?

Also, no arrow on the "reverb type option" compared to the "midi channel option" makes it 99% certain you'll never click on it anyway.

I can live with wasted space on a free plugin although i don't get the point why it has to be like that. But it's more annoying when using expensive products with 10 pages of mic options and articulations without volume control for individual articulations who have huge dynamic differences. Thats a lot of fumbling with mic levels.. i know it's has been said but just had to get this of my chest for once =)

Functionality over design please. Thanks!


----------



## cel4145

vitocorleone123 said:


> They at least need to get one of the front end developers to get a certificate in user experience design. Just adhering to some basic, fundamental, long-known principles and practices could lead to a vast improvement (after all, going from nothing to something is bigger than something to something more).



Yep.

It is surprising that Spitfire (nor NI) have figured out that workflow matters a lot to their heavy users. If those types of users are going back and forth between which sample instrument to buy, they will pick the one that is easiest to use.

So for whatever they would have to invest in improving the usability, they're likely to pick up a bigger market share. The ROI has to be worth it.


----------



## cel4145

Pier said:


> Yeah this is bad
> 
> But my comment was just about the "wasted space" argument of the video.



The wasted space is a usability issue.

Either more configuration options could be included in the existing window, thus decreasing the need to click into the menus.

Or, reconfigure everything without so much extra space in the left/right margins. Then the window doesn't take up as much space to have the important elements in it be the same size. Which can be helpful for anyone keeping it open while trying to do other things in the DAW.


----------



## Chromofonic

haha. I enjoyed this video. 🤣 
I also mention the "award winning" spitfire audio plugin design in my video about samplers.


----------



## Nimrod7




----------



## marius_dm

Spitfire’s design reminds me of 90s Flash sites made by random amateurs posing as “designers”. Tiny fonts, “collages”... The design equivalent of trying too hard. So kitschy.


----------



## EvilDragon

vitocorleone123 said:


> They at least need to get one of the front end developers to get a certificate in user experience design. Just adhering to some basic, fundamental, long-known principles and practices could lead to a vast improvement (after all, going from nothing to something is bigger than something to something more).


You know, they actually did consult an actual company that deals with UI/UX (ustwo). But they specialize in _mobile device interfaces_. 

Ugh.


----------



## David Kudell

You guys make some excellent points here. I've decided to write the Spitfire LABS team and request a full refund on all 51 of these instruments. I'll let you know what they say.


----------



## Robin Thompson

David Kudell said:


> You guys make some excellent points here. I've decided to write the Spitfire LABS team and request a full refund on all 51 of these instruments. I'll let you know what they say.


Yes, fair point indeed. But I think there are valid concerns not in the "fie! give me my money back!" sense, but in the sense that, given they are free and generally sound pretty great (as the video takes pains to acknowledge), it's a shame that I sometimes look past them anyway just to avoid the hassle. "LABS deserves better" would be my takeaway, not "LABS sucks."

Plus most of these issues spill over into premium products like BBCSO or EWC which use the same interface, and can't use their price tag as an excuse.


----------



## mybadmemory

When you design things you can’t design for everyone. On one end you have pro users that always want immediate access to everything and nothing hidden. When you already know what everything is and this makes sense because you have everything just there, like in the cockpit of an airplane. The drawback is that anyone not being a pilot is completely overwhelmed by a cockpit and end up parazlyzed by the amount of stuff available.

For those users, what’s best is to only ever show the bare essentials, just what’s needed to actually start using the thing, and hide everything else. You can place your design anywhere on the spectrum between the two but what you can’t do is design for both ends at the same time. It’s just impossible.

Could Spitfire have chosen to do something more in-between, trying to get a little closer to the needs of both groups? Of course. But Spitfire has always been about the democratization of using samples to create orchestral music. It’s deep in their DNA and in basically everything they do, from all the learning and community aspects, to BBCSO, to offering free and cheap stuff.

One of their strongest ideologies seem to be enable people that are not traditionally trained to actually dare to get into this stuff by reducing complexity and lower the barrier of entry. Just like Apple does. Does this sacrifice certain things for certain users? Yes. But it has also turned Spitfire into the biggest and most successful library developer out there and Apple into the most successful company on the planet.

Pros will always be a niche market. The casual market have orders of magnitude more potential for growth and this is clearly the market Spitfire is designing for, and succeeding big time with.


----------



## Zedcars

In Cubase you can switch the UI to Generic and you end up with a list of faders, which may or may not be useful. At least you can now see them all on the screen at the same time:



​


----------



## vitocorleone123

mybadmemory said:


> When you design things you can’t design for everyone. On one end you have pro users that always want immediate access to everything and nothing hidden. When you already know what everything is and this makes sense because you have everything just there, like in the cockpit of an airplane. The drawback is that anyone not being a pilot is completely overwhelmed by a cockpit and end up parazlyzed by the amount of stuff available.
> 
> For those users, what’s best is to only ever show the bare essentials, just what’s needed to actually start using the thing, and hide everything else. You can place your design anywhere on the spectrum between the two but what you can’t do is design for both ends at the same time. It’s just impossible.
> 
> Could Spitfire have chosen to do something more in-between, trying to get a little closer to the needs of both groups? Of course. But Spitfire has always been about the democratization of using samples to create orchestral music. It’s deep in their DNA and in basically everything they do, from all the learning and community aspects, to BBCSO, to offering free and cheap stuff.
> 
> One of their strongest ideologies seem to be enable people that are not traditionally trained to actually dare to get into this stuff by reducing complexity and lower the barrier of entry. Just like Apple does. Does this sacrifice certain things for certain users? Yes. But it has also turned Spitfire into the biggest and most successful library developer out there and Apple into the most successful company on the planet.
> 
> Pros will always be a niche market. The casual market have orders of magnitude more potential for growth and this is clearly the market Spitfire is designing for, and succeeding big time with.


Yes, you can research and develop personas, which should be prioritized - you don't design for everyone, you design for the people you're aiming to market and sell the product to. You can, indeed, design for both ends of the spectrum, but it's not easy or inexpensive - or that the end results has to be a single product. It's generally easier and less expensive to create two products/lines: one for "casual" (how casual, really, is someone if they're buying an orchestral sampled instrument?) and one for "professionals". People can then make the choice to cross-over if they wish. Another typical approach is modal views. The least common and most difficult, but possibly best experience (?) is one that starts where the user needs it and then grows with them as they both learn the product better and get more knowledgeable about the area of expertise (eg orchestration).

Also, Apple is *not *the most successful company on the planet. It is ONE of the most successful companies on the planet (currently #2 in terms of market cap). Marketing is one of its greatest successes.


----------



## LatinXCombo

EvilDragon said:


> You know, they actually did consult an actual company that deals with UI/UX (ustwo). But they specialize in _mobile device interfaces_.
> 
> Ugh.


Ah yes. Everything I learned about mobile device interface designers I learned from this video:

 

That said, I really did enjoy ustwo's magnum opus, _Monument Valley. _


----------



## David Kudell

Robin Thompson said:


> Yes, fair point indeed. But I think there are valid concerns not in the "fie! give me my money back!" sense, but in the sense that, given they are free and generally sound pretty great (as the video takes pains to acknowledge), it's a shame that I sometimes look past them anyway just to avoid the hassle. "LABS deserves better" would be my takeaway, not "LABS sucks."
> 
> Plus most of these issues spill over into premium products like BBCSO or EWC which use the same interface, and can't use their price tag as an excuse.


Fair point - while I don’t think it seems right to complain about free stuff, it’s clear that Spitfire has been investing more into their LABS stuff as late (with a new location and team). So it wouldn’t hurt for them to also take another look at the core plugin and see if there aren’t improvements to be made. I do agree that the gray on white interface is quite hard on the eyes.


----------



## Spid

Spitfire probably consulted Jony Ive for their UI design... 🤣


----------



## LatinXCombo

Spid said:


> Spitfire probably consulted Jony Ive for their UI design... 🤣


Jony "I don't care how important those buttons are to the core function of the software, I want them GONE!" Ive.


----------



## nolotrippen

Agree with 90% of what is presented but I am soooo tired of profanity FNAR!


----------



## zigzag

In design, large amounts of white space supposedly implies luxury. 

It seems Spitfire really wants to be perceived as the most luxurious brand among rompler developers.


----------



## Pier

LatinXCombo said:


> That said, I really did enjoy ustwo's magnum opus, _Monument Valley._


It's actually available on PC now.

Hope they didn't use the mobile UI though 😂


----------



## ism

zigzag said:


> In design, large amounts of white space supposedly implies luxury.
> 
> It seems Spitfire really wants to be perceived as the most luxurious brand among rompler developers.



I'd argue that semiotics are generally not that univalent.

For instance, another thing that Spitfire's embrace of negative space suggests - and Christian has said as much - is a desire to expand the type of people who will engage with it.

Of course all of us here - an online community dedicated to obsessively discussing the technology of sample libraries - are self selected to want function over form. And so of course want something else.


I was using EWC last night, for instance. And while 99% of my user experience was about pressing keys and making music (which was fabulous, notwithstanding quite a lot of issues involve the actual notes I was playing), the other 1% of my User Experience was spent looking at the GUI and flipping back and form between completely unnecessary paginations of mics and articulations and lamenting that they couldn't have just copied SINE or something.

So hopefully they'll fix that (because it's crazy).

But my actual point is that the white space also serves to create space for non-power-users to engage with technology as an artistic medium, rather than a technical tool. And while the signification of whitespace as luxury probably makes sense in a lot of a lot of other context, I'm not sure that it applies here.

And the white space heavy design really is pretty. I really do enjoy looking at player libraries more than Sine or Kontakt. I just hope all the new diversities of new composers all this white space bring to the part will themselves quickly realize just how crazy some of the pagination is.


----------



## Pier

zigzag said:


> In design, large amounts of white space supposedly implies luxury.
> 
> It seems Spitfire really wants to be perceived as the most luxurious brand among rompler developers.


That's one way to look at it.

Another, more real I think, is that more white space implies less information overload. Less controls, less text to parse, less learning curve, etc.

The sensitivity to information overload varies from people to people. That's why a lot of people cannot stand Melda UIs for example.


----------



## muratkayi

I feel like someone explained to me why I never bother to open Spitfire Labs even though I like the sounds and have many of them installed. Most often, I just close the thing quickly and reach for contact or other plugins.
I never thought much about why that is...now I think I know.


----------



## zigzag

@ism @Pier I was half joking with that statement 

Space is often expensive/limited (eg. paper for newspapers, shop windows for stores etc.), that's why crowded design can look cheap and spacious design more prestige. But as you both said there are also other things like information signal-to-noise ratio and choice overload. And they probably have much bigger impact in this case. 

No design is perfect, as there are always some tradeoffs. Spitfire's player definitely looks pretty and it doesn't create cognitive overload. They go a little overboard with white space sometimes, but this could be fixed with responsive UI. 

Streamlining access to advanced features without damaging the main interface is a bit more challenging, but hopefully, they will manage to solve this.


----------

