HOLD the RIGS/PAGE buttons to scroll quickly inside objects & Customization to choose navigation direction

    To me this request seems very very simple , and at the same time useful, to implement:
    HOLD the RIGS/PAGE buttons to scroll quickly inside objects!


    Now moving within rigs, presets, characters need to push once the needed button for each letter or rig. Imagine instead if simply you hold the button and after 1 second the rigs start scrolling automatically up and down, really ... why not?


    Do you see any constraint? Otherwise, please add this simple feature :rolleyes:


    Thanks!
    Maurizio

    I see what you mean.


    In the current version, when you are in 'Sorted by name', the UP and DOWN buttons of the (RIG) cross (is there a better name ?) let you move alphabetically through the rigs, one letter at a time. It is a nice feature, although somewhat counter intuitive, since the [UP] brings you down in the alphabet, and the [DOWN] button brigs you up ;( . Same counter intuitive behaviour for the other views (date, authors, etc), but it's far better than nothing! Now, an automatic scroling would indeed be terrific - and spare the buttons !


    Regards.


    J. Jacques.

    Just the same thougths! :thumbup:


    :thumbup:

    Quote from ckemper

    Can you confirm this again?
    Usually the letters go up on the up-bon.


    Yes, I'm in 1.5.2.7842B .
    Each time I use [UP] (I mean : the button over the word 'RIG'), the current letter "increase" : S->T->U, etc...
    When I use [DOWN] (the button under the word 'RIG'), the current letter decreases : M->L->K->J.


    I understand there are two possible logics here : either you conceptually move up and down the view window over a long
    fixed list, either you move up and down the list under a fixed view window, and 'up' and 'down' take different
    meanings. However, I've checked on my phone : 'UP' goes towards the beginning of the alphabet, 'DOWN' towards the
    end, and I've learned to consider this as "more" natural...


    Best regards.


    Jean-Jacques.

    Edited 2 times, last by meow461 ().

    Quote from meow461

    [...] somewhat counter intuitive, since the [UP] brings you down in the alphabet, and the [DOWN] button brigs you up ;( .

    You're right, two different logics at work here :)
    Kemper's logic is that when you increase the value ("up") you move towards "higher value" figures, where B>A (as in hexadecimal numbers). Many users, accustomed to GUI logic, see the alphabet list as a looping ribbon, and the arrow is meant to tell the system which portion of the ribbon you want to see. So the UP arrow moves to values which are graphically written above the current one, as in reading data on a long strip of paper.


    Which one is best? I guess the most ergonomic choice is the one that industry standard has made us most accustomed to.


    On my KPA it works as expected: the [UP] button brings you up in the alphabet (R => S => T ...), and the [DOWN] button brigs you down (T => S => R ...), being "up" a higher value and "down" a lower one. Think of [UP] and [DOWN] buttons as [+] and [-] respectively.

    Quote from almogaver


    On my KPA it works as expected: the [UP] button brings you up in the alphabet (R => S => T ...), and the [DOWN] button brigs you down (T => S => R ...), being "up" a higher value and "down" a lower one. Think of [UP] and [DOWN] buttons as [+] and [-] respectively.


    I'm sorry, UP in the alphabet means, for me, at the start, towards the letter A, down means at the end, towards the letter Z.


    But OK -- let me develop my point of view. We have, on the RIG cross, 4 buttons ; let's talk about the [UP] and [DOWN] buttons.
    I compare the KPA behaviour with other devices I see around me.


    On my Nokia phone, the UP button brings me up in the alphabet : R=>Q=>P, the down button brings me down (A=>B=>C).
    On my computer, in any text processor, the UP arrow brings the cursor UP in the document, the DOWN arrow brings it down in the document.
    On the computer, in any window, the UP arrow brings you UP in the document/picture, the DOWN arrow DOWN.
    On my digital camera, when I zoom on a picture, the UP arrow brings me UP in the picture and the DOWN arrow brings me down.
    On my TV set, the UP button brings me UP in the menu, the DOWN button down in the menu, etc.
    On my Yamaha synthesizer, the UP button brings me up in the preset list, the DOWN button down in the preset list.
    And when I raise the head, I see the upper part of the wall ;)
    Everywhere I look, the ergonomy of the devices I use is more or less the same. None of the behaviour of the examples I give above surprises me.
    I have been in the past designing computer user interfaces, and I have a keen eye for this kind of detail.


    On the other hand, the UP/DOWN buttons of the KPA work exactly in the opposite way as what I expect, and what I have been using all my life.
    This is why I talk about a "counter intuitive" interface. (And I agree with my opinion :) )


    Best regards.


    Jean-Jacques.

    @ meow461
    The fact is that the KPA works the way you expect, although you don't know it yet. ;) Let me clarify this for you:
    All the examples you mention in your post refer to navigating within a screen. However, in "play" mode, i.e. when you see only one rig on the KPA screen, there's nothing to navigate. So the UP and DOWN buttons act as + and - respectively.
    In "browse" mode you have 8 rigs on the KPA screen and the UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT buttons on the RIG "cross" let you physically move between those rigs, exactly as you expected.
    I can't think of anything more intuitive.


    Hope that helps.


    Salut!


    Thanks for exposing your point of view. I think we are having here a very important discussion (in my experience of designing computer graphical user interfaces, I must mention this is exactly the kind of discussions we had, except of course it was within the design team and not between the final users :D -- but let's hope it is not too late for the KPA).


    First, thanks for the "The fact is that the KPA works the way you expect, although you don't know it yet." introduction. This is a political, and therefore non technical statement.


    Then I must correct you about the examples I took. Most of them do not refer about navigating within a screen.


    On my nokia phone (we spent a lot of time examining their products, and let me assure you they know a lot about designing UI), the "contact" screen displays just one contact as expected, with the name (LARGE) and the corresponding phone number (smaller), and two soft buttons, "Details" or "Exit". Note that in all screens of the UI, "Exit" is always the right button, and whatever screen is displayed in the whole UI, there is just one button which is used to call someone, and it is the key with the green phone icon. (And yes, you have guessed, my phone is ten years old, but, because of this and its characteristics: small non touch alphanumeric screen, and about 20 buttons, it is very close to the KPA in terms of designing a user interface). Of course, the UP takes me to the previous contact in alphabetic order, the down to the next contact in alphabetic order, as I already said.


    On my synth, I face a similar situation. The screen displays only preset at a time (with its bank/patch number, the soft buttons identifications, etc). But there again, I can navigate easily. And the way I expect. However, there is also a "search" screen, which displays 5 presets (I should say "rigs" because presets include effects), and of course I can navigate here as I expect. In both modes, the same keys perform the same operations.


    Now, you are trying to sell me the following argument :
    - here is some important operation (you agree that switching rig is an important operation, perhaps the most important operation in the KPA)
    - there is a mode where 8 different rigs are displayed. In this mode, the UP key goes to a previous rig (in alphabetical order), and the DOWN key goes to a following rig.
    - there is another mode : the current rig is displayed. In this mode, the UP key goes to a next rig (in alphabetical order), and the DOWN key goes to a previous rig.
    - you should be happy with that.
    So basically, for the same function, there are two cases of keys working in the opposite way. In mode "A", "UP" goes to a previous rig and "DOWN" to a next one, and in mode "B", "UP" goes to a next one and "DOWN" to a previous one.


    I'm sorry, I do not buy that.


    I do agree that selecting the wrong ring is not a big deal (except maybe in a live situation). But what if I tell you : in mode "A", "UP" saves the rig and "DOWN" deletes it ; and in mode "B", "UP" deletes it, and "DOWN" saves it, and it is very convenient, and I can't think of anything more intuitive. Would you be happy? Would you always remember what to do, whatever the stress of the situation is ?


    I repeat that a user needs to rely on a consistent interface. Same key, similar behaviour. Consistency is the first basis of the notion "user friendly" feeling. Second is similarity with known devices: if some operation looks like an operation that exists in a very common apparatus, it should behave the same. Imagine you had two cars of different brands. In one, you turn to the right by turning the steering wheel clockwise. In the other, turning the steering wheel clockwise makes the car turn to the left. Would you like that ? I don't. I whish to apply with the KPA reflexes I have learned with other devices.


    I do not feel it is necessary to elaborate much more on the subject. We have here facts :
    - in some cases, the UI buttons do not act in a consistent way.
    - in some cases, the UI acts in a way which differ from most devices we use in everyday life.
    I express my concern about it, because, while I consider this just as a minor inconvenient, I think it globally harms the KPA.


    Well - best regards.


    Jean-Jacques.

    Hi meow461


    I follow you all the way and have be thinking the exact same thing. 8o
    I always push the wrong bottom when I go true rigs with alphabetic ups and down... :wacko:


    it should be like you have nicely pointed out :D much more innovative to use..

    @ meow461


    I'm sorry if my explanation has lead you to resort to the "I was a computer GUI designer so I have the truth, and you poor user don't know much" argument. If that is not the case, then I apologize equally.


    Anyway, it seems you skipped my sentence "I can't think of anything more intuitive", which surprisingly you have turned into "you should be happy with that".


    The fact is that it's the final user who decides on the success of a product, and I - user - must say I have NEVER felt confused or uncomfortable when browsing rigs either in "play" mode or in "browse" mode; I just found it a natural process from the beginning (and I have used quite a few other electronic devices).


    You might want to start a poll or a new thread and see what other users think about it (you already have at least one that agrees with you).
    Finally, since this has gone off-topic, I'll stop posting here unless it's directly related to the OP.


    Salut!


    @ almogaver


    I'm really sorry if what I said has hurted you in any way. This was not, and is not my intention. But I am not a native english speaker, and I may have used clumsy words or expressions that let you think so.


    However I'm really upset by your first sentence. I do not resort to the "I am a computer guy argument", but I come from a world where, in every reunion, meeting, conference, etc. you have to explain who you are and expose your credits. Since the discussion is really about computer user interface, I thought I had to explain what was my experience and why I think about things in a certain way. I consider this as a form of respect to the people I am dealing with.
    Now, nothing in what I said allows you to think that I resort to the "I was a computer GUI designer so I have the truth, and you poor user don't know much" argument. Well on the contrary, I explained in the beginning of the message that I thought the discussion we had was important, and that I valued it. I even said "this is exactly the kind of discussions we had... in a design team". I think this shows how I respect you as an individual, just as I respect what you say (even if I still don't share some of your opinions, be sure I never intended to be disrespectful towards you). Please note that I never said "things should be like this because I'm right", but only "look around you and see how things really are in the world".
    Also note that showing credits as I did is not unusual on this forum, or on other ones. Everywhere, you find sentences like "I'm a Jazz player, and I think that..." or "I was in the studio with X or Y, and we found that..." or "From my experience of the stage, brand X is better than brand Y". We all have to rely on our experience in our discussions, and yes, it helps appreciate arguments that are exchanged to know what the other guy has done.


    Of course, I don't think that " I was a computer GUI designer..." in itself is a valid argument. On the other hand, I don't think either that simply accusing someone for using such an argument is in itself an argument.


    Now, just for the the fun, let me answer to your second paragraph "Anyway, it seems you skipped my sentence..." Actually, I took your two sentences :
    -- "I can't think of anything more intuitive." which I understand as "I'm quite happy with the KPA as it is" - (and you tell me that again here), and
    -- "The fact is that the KPA works the way you expect, although you don't know it yet. Let me clarify this for you.", which means "you are going to be convinced by what I say".
    So, since you are happy with this ergonomy, and since you are trying to convince me that I should think like you, the consequence is what I summarize by "you should be happy with that". Nothing could be more logical :P


    Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree, and stop the discussion after this very respectful exchange of ideas.


    Best regards.


    Jean-Jacques.

    Edited once, last by meow461 ().

    Quote from meow461

    we spent a lot of time examining their products, and let me assure you they know a lot about designing UI

    ... I'm sold :D


    Seriously, if the buttons concept was coherent in all the situations, I think people could get accustomed to them more easily. The discussion about whether the concept is "natural" or not would become secondary. The fact that the buttons' function changes depending on the context (w/o any other sign on them specifying this) actually looks like weak ergonomics to me as well.