In order to make them aware of possible improvements and sparking ideas
Tried that years ago, with several live coding environments. … To codecentric. Didn’t find the proper UI there.
I’m a mac user since a decade. I occasionally use windows when I have to.
I withdraw 
me too, tx! 
Says…? IMHO you really can’t use statements like that for much, it’s basically fashion that comes round and round. Keep it simple: Use what you like and forget the rest.
I like skeumorphism and don’t like using sound design software without it. I don’ t know why, but that’s the case.
that UI have all what you need to to work on it, just have no knobs, sliders or buttons to copy synths
or you mean use the skeumorphism that you considerate acceptable?
google “vst plugins 2020” and tell me how many non-skeumorphic options you see?
I dislike Arturia’s kind of skeumorphism. They duplicate user interfaces of old synths that are a function of the limitations and idiosyncrasies of the original instrument. And then you have to manipulate it with a mouse. It’s off-putting.
The best user interfaces are the ones that expose the underlying functions in a clear and intuitive way. The colors and the knurling of a knob are good eye candy, but once you get used to them, the graphic design fades into the background.
I stand by what I said earlier. It’s pretty much dead, except for in music production software. That’s more or less correct, isn’t it? good - settled.
well, music production software is what this thread is about, correct? good - settled.
Most of the modules in Rack feature knobs. I think these are very good in terms of UX. They allow you to effectively display a value using only a small box in your screen. Most modules use buttons. Again, small boxes that when clicked, can show values. They seem to me very effective when used with mouse and keyboard. On top of those, you can add hyper realistic skins or keeping them minimal.
There are a few other UX elements that I think they could be useful, like xy-pads. But that’s basically two knobs where each one is mapped to one axis, so like a 2D control. We could add more dimensions, but those require a special input methods; keyboard modifiers, gestures(?), pressure(?). At this point the keyboard and mouse starts becoming ineffective. Because of that, we default to the good and trusty one knob per parameters.
I get what you mean, but this sounds a bit drastic. I will rephrase it for you. “In the year 2020 (where we were supposed to have hover boards) we should be abandoning skeumorphism and start developing more effective ways of communicating with the computer without being constrained to the tyranny of imposed by the real world. If you are not in this boat, you are not picking the best choice and you should find a new planet to live”.
As much as I would like to abandon skeumorphism, I’m not smart enough to come up with new and effective way of controlling my synths using the computer keyboard and mouse. We have to wait until those guys from Xerox invent something better than a mouse or touch screen to control our computers.
In the computer world, you can always add more menus and settings dialogs, which are definitely not skeumorphism but at the same time aren’t good UX.
I agree, but you are over simplifying. My phone has a slider on it, but it isn’t a 3D rendering of a neve console. Ableton had flat 2d “knobs”. You can have familiar ui elements without drawing exact pictures of what they looked like 50 years ago. Still it’s personal preference. But knobs and sliders don’t mean the sk word.
yeah, maybe I’m understanding skeumorphism incorrectly, but that slider/switch in the phone is still skeumorphic. It retains characteristics from a real switch with two positions. Even if they make that slider a small circle or box that when touched it is enabled or disabled, it will still retain characteristics from an old push button. My point is that it is hard to really abandon it, at least for the elements used in synths, because you will end up with something that has the characteristics of knob, slider, switch or a digit display. In other areas, apple has really expanded the UX with things like with the gestures, etc.
The look is a different topic. Making a knob look realistic is done for lust. To bring the emotions we felt when looking that old (or new) gear. Personally, I don’t mind any of the two extremes, minimalist look or realistic. For the people that minds one or the other, there is a simple solution and they already know it.
From my perspective, the Rack itself emphasis skeumorphism. A module has to have a defined size in milimeters. Take a look at the cables and compare them to ‘cables’ in Bitwig Grid or PureData. Take a look at vcvrack.com where the Rack is presented as ‘The Eurorack Simulator’ and read the design guidlines at https://vcvrack.com/manual/Panel ‘Design panels as if you are designing hardware. Make sure there is enough space between knobs and ports to put your thumbs between them …’
From my perspective, the VCV Rack is made especially for skeumorphism enthusiasts (like me ).
It’s true that nearly all Rack modules use very skeuomorphic designs, but I disagree that VCV Rack the platform should do something to change this. Plugin developers are free to implement any user interface they can think up, and as far as I’m aware the official plugin library review team does not impose any interface restrictions whatsoever.
I can think of a few non-skeuomorphic elements used in various modules:
I agree that there is a lot of potential for interesting non-skeuomorphic designs. I think they could be perfectly implemented as modules using the existing Rack platform.
I’ve been trying to work out to what extent our MindMeld mixer system would be considered skeuomorphic.
It kinda looks like hardware and (we’ve been told) is immediately familiar to people who are used to using hardware studio mixers.
On the other hand, it has a lot of right-click contextual menus and settings that enable it to have a feature set that would be impossible to replicate in a hardware mixer in Eurorack format and can really only be achieved in software - it certainly doesn’t have any artificial hardware limitations applied.
Therefore… is it (mostly) skeuomorphic or not?
Adam (Computerscare) makes some really good points above - and his comments made me realise that it is not just about hardware Vs software UI elements, but also Analog Vs Digital UI elements.
For example, he says anything with a text field is non-skeuomorphic, and yet there are definitely top-end hardware mixing desks (SSL for example) that let you enter track names in text and display them in an LED screen - even though the signal path itself in analog. So that’s a digital feature rather than a purely software feature I’d say. I guess the point I’m making is that while hardware UI/UX elements are found in software, the reverse is also true – a lot of software/digital UI/UX elements are now found in hardware.
That’s the bottom line and one of the key things that makes Rack so good.
Exactly. And for anyone else: I dislike the poor design choices that come with skeumorphism if not applied perfectly.
Neumorphism if applied properly looks actually very clear and good. Like the ROLI interfaces.
The problems that come withs Skeumorphism are the limiting UX choices. NOT the design.
Lime for example The impromptu sequencers. Amazing feature set. Good looking UI. But the UX is awefull. A lot of fiddling, little to no direct access to all functions. Adding a full screen view (alternativ UI) would help tremendously.
Another example of on the the best modules In rack: MindMeld Mixer. No need for different versions. Make it lean as 1 unit an add button a s when clicked the UI expands and adds another strip. No limits… Still all in module an no lag due to port mappings or manual wiring
Roli interfaces are more like Flat design than Neumorphism… Neumorphism (from the definitions i found) implies shadowings to give a 3D effect and curvy shapes.
Also, i don’t think Skeumorphism or Neumorphism has anything to do with UX. I mean it’s just about Appearance and “Skins”.
Let’s take the impromptu example you were giving, and make it Neumorphic. It’s not going to change how the module works, just the buttons and commands appearance. The UX that you don’t like is still going to be the same, so i really don’t see where you are trying to go.
Btw, Neumorphism doesn’t seem to be so great , I personally don’t like the way it looks (i prefer Flat design way more), and it seems i’m far from being the only one :
“While its sober appearance is very tempting, it can be a double-edged sword. According to the law of pragnanz, people tend to identify objects with simple shapes more easily. In this case, figures such as squares or circles do not have an edge line separating them from the background. Its “limit” is built on the play of light and shadow. This can result in people with visual perception problems not being able to identify them well.”
found on this link : Neumorphism (aka neomorphism) : new trend in UI design | Ma-No Tech News & Analysis, javascript, angular, react, vue, php
And whenever i type Neumorphism in Google US or Google France, more than half of the results are articles trashing it 
I guess it’s not because it’s new that it’s good 
Well, in extreme cases too much eye candy can affect ux. Obvious ways are obscuring functionality, and affecting drawing time so much that the ux is impacted. I don’t know where pretty modules that are intentionally obscure fit into this…
Impromptu is opensource I believe, just fork it and make it better. Personally, I like their modules the way they are, they are one of the 5 “brands” i use most, so I probably won’t use your fork.