MOTM

I apologize if this going over old ground, and I understand I may be 
invoking the wrath of the devoted, but in my humble opinion, the 
rigid grid MOTM panel design is a considerable drawback to the 
system.  My opinion is that the Moog design approach (or to differing 
degrees the design of Arp 2500, Cirocco modulars, or Polyfusion 
systems) is superior in that anyone familiar with the modules can 
identify functions easily from a distance, a goal of good human 
interface design.  To my eye, for example, no two Moog modules look 
alike, whereas (nearly) all the MOTM modules do.  Look at the 
dashboards of well-designed cars and you will see differently shaped 
and sized buttons whose functions relate to their appearance and can 
be identified from a distance by a driver whose attention is (mostly) 
elsewhere.  Those dashboards with rows of identical buttons are 
criticized in the automotive press.

To put this in context, I use a medium-sized modular Moog augmented 
with a smattering of modules from MOTM, Synth.com and Blacet.  I've 
also designed a few panels of my own over the last 20 years.  
Recently, faced with the choice of purchasing Mixer, Noise and Sample 
& Hold modules, I chose the Synth.com modules over the MOTM modules, 
simply from an ergonomic standpoint, and despite the superior 
specifications of the MOTM offerings.  I truly do like the MOTM 
modules I currently have, and will purchase more, but there is room 
for improvement in the interface design.

In any case, please consider the advantages of "varying the grid", 
allowing for different knob types, and functional layout choices when 
considering new panel designs.  And thank you in advance for being 
open minded enough to consider other points of view.