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.

Well, it's clearly not for everybody, then.  

Curiously, I sold all of my Synth.com stuff because it was noisy.  I 
am most interested in the music that a system will produce and to my 
ears and taste, that means MOTM.  And I absolutely *love* the look!

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "rogerpellegrini" <pellegrini_roger@J...> wrote:
> 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.

I have been keeping out of the many layout debates flying back and forth but I think
Roger has hit home on something here.  Uniformity of layout, while a boon for
mechanical and electrical design, really hurts ergonomics.  I have found that it is
much easier to navigate a Moog modular than it is a MOTM.  What I have found is that
after a bit of time, I "know" where paritcular modules are in my setup so I just go
there but when I rearrange modules because of new modules or whatever reason, I have
a period of confusion while I relearn where everything is located.  Yes, the number
of knobs and switches varies on the MOTM modules and that helps but it isn't enough.
 The human mind recognizes shapes more readily than quantities.

All this said, I'm not going to stop buying MOTM modules if the layout stays the
same but I do believe there is room for improvement.  I'd prefer that my MOTM has
the staying power of the likes of Moog and ARP rather than something like an Aries
whose designers seemed to be enamored with and hampered by a consistent
layout/format philosophy.

   Eric


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Roger makes a lot of good points here about layout.  I'll excuse him for
making the dot com decision for perceived ergonomics over sound quality.  I
voted for the 3U1 design.  But, I can see some advantages to having some
modules have a more unique look.  I am embarrassed to admit I have found
myself occasionally tuning the knobs on modules that were not connected.
Sigh....  I will buy them for the sound and accept the interface.  But,
there is room for compromised between total uniformity vs. recognizability
(OK, so that's not a real word).  Of course, all have to take practicality
of design construction into account.

I do agree that is it a fun exercise to look at photos of an unknown Moog
synth and pick out the various modules based on their layout.  But, I would
stop well short of saying the  MOTM rigid grid would cause me to go to
Synth.com.  BUT, I will happily patch my dot com VCA until the MOTM 130
becomes a reality.

Larry H

----- Original Message -----
From: rogerpellegrini <pellegrini_roger@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: [motm] Re: Grids, Layouts, Ergonomics


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.





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I, for one, like the uniformity. So, it drives me nuts
that the 310 has the jack description BELOW the jack -
unlike all the other modules. Also, obviously when a
jack is inserted the description is covered by the
jack.

Not to be whining... ;-)





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Odd that I never noticed that...  However, it looks like ALL the micro-modules have the jack names below, which is a nice consistancy thing.

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Black [mailto:black_man_music@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:40 PM
To: MOTM List
Subject: Re: [motm] Grids, Layouts and the 310


I, for one, like the uniformity. So, it drives me nuts
that the 310 has the jack description BELOW the jack -
unlike all the other modules. Also, obviously when a
jack is inserted the description is covered by the
jack.