What is your personal opinion on text legibility vs decorative design? I’m pretty old fashioned and really want text to be readable. Partly because of that I usually use the Google Robobo font, and keep the size fairly large, with a conventional visual contrast between the text and the background. Except for my “branding” which uses a truly awful font called “Space Patrol”.
Of course many modules use more fanciful fonts, less traditional colors smaller sizes, and some of these look pretty good.
Hey @Squinky
I would say that generally speaking legibility is most important. The interaction between user and module starts there. But type is doing its job if nobody notices it.
People often think that decoration means a crazy typeface, which often ends up feel cheap or cheesy.
Good type is like good storytelling, it shows and does not tell. Every typeface communicates something, even if it does not literally scream it.
So then the important question is what do you want to communicate?
There are tons of typefaces that are legible and classy, and still fun. I used the word intentional not in any pointed way, just to say that module collections (and anything designed for that matter) should be aware of the feeling/essence/ they create when used. Type is a large part of the “brand” and its communication and should be chosen carefully in ways that are purposeful to their purpose or personality. (the collection, module maker, experience, brand, etc.) Bonus points if they can stand out while still fitting neatly within the ethos of VCV as a wholistic metaphorical “brand”.
Also, nothing wrong with roboto @Squinky. Its a beautifully crafted typeface. I also think it works well with what you make too, being that you labor over creating efficient code. (Roboto has roots in tech) There might also be a metaphor to be made about its simplicity and things like functional vco.
I thought roboto was like, a family of typefaces, not that I know anything about fonts. What little I know about branding I prolly gleaned from Warhol and Lichtenstein, and those braincells are long gone.
I do know that the first thing that grabs me about a module is its faceplate, because I’m human, and prejudicial, and that it serves me well about half the time.
A while ago, I started this tangent by saying that @Squinky look didn’t say “serious,” and at the time that was all I meant, because squinky modules are incredibly functional and serious.
If I want to frustrate myself by trying to learn (overcome is more likely) algorithms that are based deeply in physics and mathematics, I will drag a handful of geodesics modules, and probably make something either intricate and beautiful or just not and give myself a migraine which is fine because when I look at geodesics modules, that’s exactly what they say, just like Lindbergh Modules’ faceplates say polished.
I know neither as much about aesthetics as @sounds (I’m thinking an advanced degree in design, I could be way off, but even the avatar says “studied color theory.”), or as much about programming and mathematics as @Squinky but I know that the space font made me not recognize the name of my favorite Russian mathematician’s name on the front of a module that uses integral multiplication shape waveforms, and in turn didn’t use it for months, and then used it all the time…
I suppose I didn’t communicate this at the time, but I literally meant that I didn’t take the modules seriously, then we started talking aesthetics. I’m a bass player and a Chess coach and tournament player. It’s humbling that anyone takes me seriously in this community, but I guess that’s why I love it even more than buying actual modular gear and getting cool stickers and punk rock buttons and toys and cool sh#t like that. Also it’s free.
@Narcoterror yeah, it’s a family. I meant as a generalization. I agree with your notes on seriousness, as well as beauty. I think some bold geometric or grotesque sans in this instance might more accurately portray Squinky’s ethos and goal of making. Seriousness aside I definitely think the use of that unique typeface has now become synonymous with his brand, which is another discussion entirely. 
( Not meant as a critique Squinky, just thinking out loud, as I know you didn’t quite ask. Feel entirely free to ignore )
Neither of you need to worry about displeasing me. These critiques are mild and clearly well intentioned. I’m tempted to respond more at length, but that will have to wait for another time.
…degrees in design and communications?
I didn’t even think of that, and it’s a great point. That specific typeface has become synonymous with the brand.
Thanks, Mr. Draper. We should have drinks later this morning! 
I’d love to see more designers in this space who partner with module devs, similar the the excellent work by @pyer on so many modules (Geodesics, NYSTHI, etc.); a beautiful front end goes a long way in terms of pure enjoyment of using/looking at patches.
Continuing from our other discussion, how can you determine what is good or bad if you don’t believe in meaning and you come from naturalism or even nihilism? You trust the random chemical reactions in your brain to come up with a critique? lol. I’m just giving you general, friendly criticism on what you call your philosophy or your influences, friend.
That does not sound friendly at all. You came after a user from another thread because they expressed their reasons why they don’t hold the same beliefs as you. You are now trying to derail a relevant discussion about module design towards a debate about philosophy, providing nothing as a premise other than an oversimplified misrepresentation of their stance followed by “lol”.
Are you sure this is the right way or place to do this?
It’s just banter, mate. I thought it was the funniest thing i’d ever read when your tolerant atheist man there announced he was going to fight my religion to the death after he brought up spirituality and i tried to explain a few things. I was interested in his reply too out of genuine goodwill but also i have to give a little back, you know? lol.
How are russian nihilists connected? Yeah i reckon there are objective right and wrong ways to design a panel and many other things. Creativity comes from limitations after all. I’m not really qualified to judge though, maybe no man is.
There is no need for objective right or wrong to have an opinion about something being out of place. I have given you my subjective interpretation of what it sounded like. My opinion is that it would be best to do this in personal messages, a separate thread, or written in a way that contributes to the discussion.
How are religious beliefs connected to what module faceplates people tend to like? Is there an objective right or wrong way to design a panel? (I’m actually curious what you think, these aren’t rhetorical questions)
Did you just completely re-edit your message instead of replying?
What you explain in the re-edit is exactly what I assumed in my original comment, and that you wrote off as my subjective interpretation and just “friendly banter”.
Hope a mod will purge our stuff from here, this was an interesting thread before…
EDIT: you did not “try to explain things” you were trying to make their views sound ridiculous by providing basically zero insight why your beliefs are more valid.
Oh yeah my bad lol
Well, it’s hard to do that or give any kind of constructive criticism when you deny the existence of objective standards. truth or meaning. That’s what i was trying to get across with my, pretty standard, refutation, it’s really an inherent self-refutation, of naturalism.
I mean, this is a fundamental issue when talking about criticism, especially when bringing up russian nihilists, which is why i said i thought this tangent wasn’t a derail.
Let me re-phrase, I hope a mod will move this discussion to a “the fundamentals of reasoning and the universe” thread or something.
Could you stop strawmanning? I never denied the existence of objective truth or standards. I simply don’t know if they exist or not. Not believing in something does not automatically mean believing the opposite. There is always the path of not knowing the answer.
You hide behind the claim of doing constructive criticism and me trying to take that away from you, when all I did was criticize the way you do criticism. My claim was that you were just attacking ideas that you yourself have created, like the idea that nihilism or naturalism means that our critic must come from “random chemical reactions”. Chemical reactions are kind of predictable most of the time (the opposite of random), where did you get this notion from?
@Narcoterror might go on tangents about their views, but in the end they always come back to the issue at hand, you fail to do this in my opinion, you focus on the tangent instead.
You claim thoughts are predictable then. Or that thoughts don’t exclusively come from chemical reactions in the brain. Which one are you more prepared to defend? I don’t think you or I could predict even if we cracked your noggin open.
Well your man was talking about Good ideas or whatever. Maybe you should have stayed out of the discussion.
I don’t know. But experiencing them from the inside, I feel it doesn’t really matter. If our critique is deterministic or based on free will, what difference does it make?
One important insight I think is that there is an abstraction that happens in the brain that makes it misguided to think about thinking as “coming from chemical reactions”. It is just one substrate where thinking can occur, far from being the only one. Our thoughts work on a different level than single reactions do, similar to how ideas work on a separate level of the letters we express them with, there is limited meaning you can extract about what I’m trying to tell you from studying the letters I communicate with.
Yes, I almost always regret it too. I felt the need for a bit of a crusade, sorry.
Alright, before any sanctions get taken.
Last time @Narcoterror insults a religion in the way they did in their (now deleted message) in the other thread. The way it was formulated is intolerable, and they are lucky i just give a warning.
And both @studioDominic and @sotraphuka , i’d appreciate if next time you either take it to Private messages, or flag a post / call a mod if somethings bothers you instead of adding fuel to the fire.
I’m not hostile to a “the fundamentals of reasoning and the universe" thread as long as the discussion stays civil and without any bigotry. However if that goes bad, i wouldn’t hesitate to lock said thread and mute participants that break the Code of conduct for some time…
it honestly didn’t bother me mate. I was genuinely curious to what the fella would say.