MOTM

Roger wrote:

> Paul himself
> marveled at how the Buchla module functions could be ascertained from
> across the room.  I vote for EVERY new module's form to follow its
> function, rather than be limited by a compromise made years ago in
> manufacturing cost context somewhat different from today's.
>

Exactly! The problem with the argument that "all modules should stay 
'on grid' and use the exact same knob sizes", is that it's a 
significant limitation, especially when you start to talk about modules 
with much greater complexity. One could even argue that some of the 
-existing- modules would be a little more UI-friendly if they used 
different knob sizes and/or weren't 'on the grid'.

I've probably said this before on the list, but one of the great things 
about the Technosaurus line is the different knob sizes and logical 
panel flow. Say what you want about the panel -graphics- (the blue 
background - I'm not a big fan of it), but the layout is great and 
having larger knobs to control important, oft-used functions makes 
perfect sense and adds a great deal to the usability of the modules. 
Example: the cutoff frequency knob on the VCF is really big. This makes 
it easy to find even on a big system, and easy to adjust. The MOTM 
layout spec is perfectly functional but there's no good reason to 
constrain new designs by trying to shoehorn them in to that spec. The 
solution is to expand upon the spec so that it remains tasteful but can 
incorporate new designs a little more readily.

Mike