Make the GUI modular

Cubase
,
1

Please make the GUI modular. All panels should be attachable / detachable / resizeable. Big screens
are a bargain nowadays and it would be very useful to have different panels docked to GUI as preferred.

At least make the panels resizable - at the moment, some parts of the GUI can be resized
and others not. Or they can be resized up to a certain point. It makes little sense.

Especially the Visibility panel would benefit from it being resizeable. Navigating hundreads
of tracks having to come up with all sorts of rules to make the names short so they show up in
the visibility tab is difficult.

The Visibility panel could be detachable so it could float on top of everything.

2

I have asked for dockable windows similar to the Wavelab GUI. Is this what you are asking for also or does it differ from how the Wavelab 9.5 GUI works?

3

I think a combination of these where you could either put things to tabs or dock them next to each other would be great. In general, a modular GUI where the user can freely decide what sits and where and how much screen space different elements take. It’s quite illogical at the moment, some things you can customize but only to a certain degree (like some panels are resizable to a certain point and some panels you can’t resize at all).

4

+1
Yes, please. Something similar to the modular approach of WaveLab’ GUI, but designed for Cubase’s workflow (writing/producing/editing/mixing) requirements would be so cool.

5

Hi Ilmeri,

I agree. I was glad to see the them start moving this direction with the zone concept and thought that they would continue to evolve it into something like what we see in Wavelab. It appears that they have settled in to the the current layout which is a little disappointing. It could be so much more if they when the Wavelab route with the combination of dockable and tabbed windows that could be resized to the user’s liking.

6

Save us all No more crazy completely new GUI CHANGES please for the love of all things groovy, start focusing on basic workflow mechanics and not GUI.

And too be honest, I hate modular GUIs, it’s one thing I can’t stand in video programs but they are at least an understandable need in video programs where you have to balance your screen realestate to be able to see the video at different sizes relative to what you are working on.

I do not want stuff floating all over place - it’s bad enough managing 16 floating plugins per channel and all sort of other floating things. Threre’s a lot of float-able things in Cubase.

7

Save us all No more crazy completely new GUI CHANGES please for the love of all things groovy, start focusing on basic workflow mechanics and not GUI.

And too be honest, I hate modular GUIs, it’s one thing I can’t stand in video programs but they are at least an understandable need in video programs where you have to balance your screen realestate to be able to see the video at different sizes relative to what you are working on.

I do not want stuff floating all over place - it’s bad enough managing 16 floating plugins per channel and all sort of other floating things. Threre’s a lot of float-able things in Cubase.

Just get good at using zones and keycommands for zones, as well as windows and workspace commands and utilize a second screen.

Maybe some things, like visibility sure… but not everything. Besides everything pretty well already can be undocked in the form of having an alternate window view like the media bay x media right zone.

8
  • 1 !
  • 1

and for the rest of you posting I agree with you too.

9

Save us all > No more crazy completely new GUI CHANGES > please for the love of all things groovy, start focusing on basic workflow mechanics and not GUI.

And too be honest, I hate modular GUIs, it’s one thing I can’t stand in video programs but they are at least an understandable need in video programs where you have to balance your screen realestate to be able to see the video at different sizes relative to what you are working on.

I do not want stuff floating all over place - it’s bad enough managing 16 floating plugins per channel and all sort of other floating things. Threre’s a lot of float-able things in Cubase.

Just get good at using zones and keycommands for zones, as well as windows and workspace commands and utilize a second screen.

Maybe some things, like visibility sure… but not everything. Besides everything pretty well already can be undocked in the form of having an alternate window view like the media bay x media right zone.

I think the GUI as quite an important part of the basic workflow. It doesn’t really have to be changed much from what it is atm, the current design should just be executed a little better. As mentioned, you can for example resize some parts of the GUI but not all. I very much would like to resize the left panel, as i would like to see the names of my tracks in the visibility panel. I also wouldn’t mind being able to resize the right panel and to have the possibility of fitting in the MediaBay as it is, now i can’t search my scanned media files in the Media-tab which i can do in MediaBay.

So yes, i do agree - making the GUI fully modular would be too much, but a little improvement to the current design wouldn’t hurt. And i very much agree to improving the current functionality in general instead of bringing in new additions.

10

I agree with Ilmeri that the GUI has a huge impact on workflow. Everyone has a preference of what section of the program is most important and how much real estate they want each section to take up on their screen(s). I personally don’t want windows floating all over the place, but I would like to be able to resize and dock the sections where I want them to be (see Wavelab). I also would like to have the ability to have tabbed windows, especially with the VST editors (see Studio One). Their workflow for editing the settings of VSTs and VSTis opposed to Cubase’s current open - close - open - close - open the window is a huge workflow enhancement in my opinion. Of course, each user has a different focus and a different workflow as a result.

Resonant,

You have every right to disagree with someone in this forum, but be tactful and respectful to the ideas of others in your posts. This forum should be a safe place to share ideas without worrying about condescending remarks. How would you like someone to label every idea of yours that they did not agree with “crazy”? You could have just as easily said, “I prefer the GUI in its current form and would like Steinberg to focus on other areas of the program” and it would have had the same meaning without the negative vibe.

I could spend a year of my life weeding through all of your suggestions and comments that I didn’t agree with and still not scratch the surface. However, I don’t feel the need to do this because I feel that a no comment is just as effective as a unnecessarily negative one. Ideas that appeal to the masses will gain traction as time goes on and others that don’t won’t. It is that simple. I don’t feel the need to belittle the ideas of others in an attempt to make my own ideas seem better. Maybe you do or maybe the word “crazy” doesn’t have the same negative connotation to you as it does to most others? If you would like some extremely blunt and honest feedback on all of your ideas, please let me know, but keep in mind it may take me a while to get to them all. On second thought, nevermind, I wouldn’t want to bump them back to the top of the list. :wink:

11

I didn’t label his idea as crazy, I referred to the massive GUI changes from one version to the next since v4 as crazy because their level of impact is arguable in comparison to making smaller improvements to the program that have a bigger impact on workflow. Everytime the GUI is updated, you have to relearn that workflow - stopping your workflow, to learn a new GUI workflow is not good workflow and I as well as many others, are eager to stop having to do this with every single update when we’ve been lobbying for single particular key commands to be added for 10 years.

This forum is a safe place, condescending remarks or not, and there weren’t any.

12

I can understand your frustration regarding features that you want not being added. Please keep in mind, ever user is different and has different priorities than you. The PLE or certain key command functionality may be something that affects you greatly while others don’t care about it at all. How would you feel if every user that doesn’t use the PLE much or at all came in and posted in your PLE requests:

"Save us all No more crazy completely new PLE CHANGES please for the love of all things groovy, start focusing on basic workflow mechanics and not PLE. "

Do you still feel the same about the vibe of the comment now? If you still don’t see the negativity in it, I think you are kidding yourself.

You may feel that you post was not condescending and we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Not pointing a finger at you specifically, but I have seen many posts from other users that would discourage users from openly sharing their ideas. Not my idea of a safe place.

In my opinion the GUI is the most basic part of my workflow, the way things are laid out on my displays, the way I get from one thing to another. Why is my opinion and lesser than yours? I am not asking you to agree with me only that you treat my idea like you would want others to treat yours.

On a final note, why is this request such a radical idea in your eyes? I don’t think the OP equates modular to floating and I certainly don’t. Steinberg could recreate the current layout in a scalable, re-sizable way that should not have any major impact on those who like the way things are now. At the same time, allowing users to move / add /remove / re-size things as they choose. They have already started this in a more basic form with the zone concept. Are you not a fan of the zones? It sound like you are leveraging them in your workflow.

In your own words: “it’s bad enough managing 16 floating plugins per channel and all sort of other floating things.”

Studio One’s tabbed windows handles this much better, in my opinion. Have you used Wavelab (dockable windows) or Studio One (tabbed VST windows) to see the elements that I am referring to first hand? If so, what did you not like about them?

13

PLE is a workflow enhancer. I’m being completely logical and pragmatic here and have a pretty thorough thought process.

The point is, Steinberg has been revising the GUI since v4. Any of the GUIs since 4 could have sufficed if other workflow mechanics were ironed out. That’s thing thing… GUI keeps changing, the actual workflow doesn’t. It’s a problem. I’m pointing out a major problem with the way Steinberg is doing things, and the GUI is fine. It’s bloody just fine, it works. Settle on one GUI for a bit, and work on other stuff. This is my opinion, I’ve stated it. Other people agree with me. I am voting against more major GUI revisions, the sound of ‘Modular GUI’ sounds like my worst nightmare of a ‘next update’… Whatever modular GUI is, I don’t want it. I agreed with potentially better visibility panel that can have its own float window.


I’ve got lots of GUI suggestions myself I could list off, some pretty innovative ideas actually… But, they’re nothing without the fundamentals being ironed out and I’m just getting used to the new current Cubase GUI since v9. I don’t want to have to relearn more GUI… Having a consistent GUI is more important, than one that is always changing to “be the best”.

14

Welcome back Resonant,

I appreciate you keeping this thread at the top of the list.

I have no doubt that you could find others that are happy with the current GUI, but I doubt most of them would bash another person’s idea. Most people would just ignore it and let it slide down to the 15th page of the request forum without the need to say anything as negative as you did.

Believe it or not, I understand your concerns about an ever changing GUI. I don’t think that there is need for constant cosmetic changes that do not affect workflow. However, I don’t agree that Steinberg should stop striving to improve the GUI in terms or reducing the number of click that it takes to edit VST settings or make the layout more customizable to each user’s specific taste. For me, that is a big part of my workflow. I would say that there are a few things that I would place higher on my list but not many. Also, many feature requests in the forum revolve around GUI tweaks so the GUI is definitely and area that people are interested in. It may be that others don’t like this idea as much as others out there and I am okay with that. However, I would expect that any detractors would comment in a polite way or not at all.

I personally don’t use the PLE and I haven’t run into any roadblocks with the key commands either. This coming from someone that has stayed upgraded on almost every .0 and .5 release since Cubase 5. It just really isn’t a big part of what I need personally. I am sure that there are others that feel that the PLE and key commands are “bloody just fine also”. Have you ever considered that thought? That being said, I personally would not post against your ideas because they are really not something I care much about currently. That doesn’t mean that, one day, I won’t get more involved with the PLE and I may come to appreciate some of the things that you are asking for.

PLE, it’s your thing. I’m good with that and would be happy for you to get some of the things you have been waiting for implemented. If it doesn’t happen, it isn’t because someone requested a GUI tweak. It is because Steinberg doesn’t think it is worthy or they can’t make any money with it. You may have the best idea in the world but if Steinberg sees it as something that only 5% or 10% of the user base is going to break out their wallet for it, it isn’t going to be a priority for them. I am not saying that is right, but it is realistic. They run a business. What percentage of the Cubase user base do you think is heavily involved with the PLE and would truly benefit from some of your requests? I am asking this honestly because I don’t have a clue.

I would love to hear your ideas on the GUI changes you had in mind although you have made it clear that the GUI is not your priority so I can understand why you are choosing not to share them. We would hate for it to be so great that Steinberg actually work on that idea instead of the PLE or key commands.

Overall, I think you are missing the point of my responses to you, it isn’t the fact that you didn’t like the OP’s and my ideas, it is the way you went about it in your post. Again, you could have easily posted a simple tactful comment like I mentioned above and moved on. I would have never responded to you because everyone has the right to their opinion. Instead you responded like it was the worst idea you had ever heard. You are coming across like a person that feels entitled to have things go their way just because you have been a long time customer, but Steinberg is always going to go with what the majority wants. It is not a flaw, it is just not what you what to hear.

15

Hi Ilmeri,

I apologize for the back and forth with Resonant and going off topic. Hopefully, the thread is back on track now.

Thanks,

16

I can logically and pragmatically break down why they are not okay in professional applications. PLE should be everyones thing If they want to make money and work faster. I wouldn’t hire someone for PLE not being their thing. Do you select your track colours 1 by 1? Because you an have PLE colour your tracks based off what you’ve named them automatically at the press of a hotkey. If that’s not your thing, then I probably wouldn’t hire you and my concern here is focusing on features that get people hired and paid.

I’ve likely already made my GUI suggestions in the thread. My export window critique is GUI related. My colouring critiques are GUI related.

My interjection here, was, no more major crazy GUI changes and that sometimes fixed structure is better than modularity and the amount of resources it would take to accomplish this would prevent other things from being worked on when all we are getting the past 5 versions is GUI changes and new features that half work. That’s not bashing his idea, it’s identifying a problem.

17

Having a flexible, modular GUI

+1


I don’t understand the opposition to this idea, it won’t affect anybody that doesn’t want it. Unless they detach a part of GUI etc, everything will be same as before. Am I missing something?

18

If it is implemented good - but that’s a big if - and it completely changes the way the user has to navigate the program, all sorts of controls need to be implemented… for example, in video programs which I’m less experienced with, I accidentally hit something and then my windows and tabs are all suddenly re-arranged or missing, and I have to figure out how to get back to the previous arrangement, etc, etc - it can get very confusing quickly.

So there’s lots that goes into a modular GUI, it’s one thing to just suggest and think “yeah okay that would be great” but how it’s actually implemented and how the user interacts with it is another thing - and you don’t want it to get in the way of the musicality of the DAW - that’s something video editors don’t have to worry about. Which is why, most DAWs are fairly static in UI, it better serves audio/music I think.

And to be honest, I’m getting tired of having to relearn a program I’ve known for over 10 years.

So those are my concerns, I wouldn’t say opposition. Let me ask this, what is it about a modular GUI that would help you make music?

19

For me, if I were making music only, I wouldn’t need a GUI at all. I would only need a pencil and paper. Today, we are doing every stage of the production.

So most of us are doing technical work, a lot of repetitive actions, tweaking parameters, commands, etc. So for me, the more customizable the better. You create your workflow.

I know that some people want IOS-style hard coded workflows, customization is restricted, but these users are happy that somebody else has made the workflow for them. But others want to do it their way, not be restricted to what’s been dictated for them.

If we are afraid of Cubase breaking because of added options, then let’s cut development at this stage, and close the company, let’s say “that’s it, it’s the best Cubase there is.”

Here’s a thread by me on customization of the inspector :

I’m not a graphics expert, sorry for my poor photoshop skills, but you get the idea: If somebody uses X function/parameter a lot, let them put it on the main tab of the inspector. Also remove what you don’t use, to make space and simplify.

20

I agree with your points above Sonic. To Resonant’s point about relearning the program, every feature implementation requires a certain amount of learning or re-learning. However, I do agree with him that it is all about the implementation, as with any other additions to the software.

Personally, I have not had the issues he mentions in regards to windows and tabs being re-arranged when using Wavelab.

If done correctly, the base layout wouldn’t change much right out of the box. Dockable windows would allow each user to move things into a better logical place and resize them based on their individual preference, if they choose to. If they like the base layout, they would just leave things as is.

Of course, Resonant, I am not trying to sway your opinion since I know you are heavily against the idea, but rather address your points to others that may be interested in this idea.