the way software looks.

GoldWave general discussions and community help
Post Reply
pixeltarian
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:37 pm

the way software looks.

Post by pixeltarian »

I was curious why goldwave doesn't put some time into modernizing the way the program looks. I mean, many other companies create programs that do the same thing cost hundreds more just because they look more professional grade.

anyone else wish goldwave had a more modern looking interface? maybe I'm alone in this. would a skinnable interface be something to consider future versions?

what are your thoughts people?
Sarge
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:04 am

Post by Sarge »

I was curious why goldwave doesn't put some time into modernizing the way the program looks?
I believe in the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method and thats why I think that GoldWave is great the way it is, and always has been. GoldWave has had the same easy/straightforward interface for as long as I've been using it (8 years).

Sure, GoldWave may not have all the little "bells and whistles" as other multi-hundred dollar editors, but I believe that the lack of these "bells and whistles" is why I like GoldWave, and prefer it over all the other audio editors I have tried. All the so-called "modern" features/interface on other expensive programs to me just seems to be more or less eye candy. Besides, would making GoldWave look more modern change the way that the program works? When programs are upgraded to look "more modern" the first difference I usually see is the price (and thats where your "professional grade" editors that you mentioned come to my mind).

No, I don't think there should be a different looking (even skinnable) interface. If thats what you want, skinnable interfaces, then I guess you should look at the expensive programs. Its like buying a car. You're going to pay more for all those little extra unnecessary options you want. Whether you get the car with 22 inch chrome rims or hubcaps, its still going to take you to your destination (unless your wallet is empty after spending all the money on the rims). :D

This is just my opinion, but I strongly believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sarge
DougDbug
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Post by DougDbug »

I agree with Sarge. It's really annoying when Microsoft changes the interface and the orginization of the sub-menus, etc. It means you have to re-learn everything when a new version comes out.

GoldWave is a tool. I don't need any silly "skins" on my tools. ....I don't need pinstripes on my power drill either. :roll:

And, allowing skins might drastically increase the customer support requirements. You would have developers asking questions about how to make skins, and users asking questions about how to install and configure the 3rd-party skins, etc. That wouldn't be a big deal for us on the user-to-user forum, but I'll bet Chris (GoldWave) has more important things to do with his time. (I hope he's working on stuff like 5.1 channel surround... :wink: )
GoldWave Inc.
Site Admin
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: St. John's, NL
Contact:

Re: the way software looks.

Post by GoldWave Inc. »

This is an interesting topic. I occasionally get asked the same question in e-mail.

Personally I dislike skinnable interfaces, such as the one used in Windows Media Player for example. On some of the skins, controls are missing or placed in inconvenient locations just for looks. Something as simple as opening a new file to play can take a novice a few minutes to figure out because there is no button or menu for that anywhere on the skin. "Modern" interfaces tend to have a much steeper learning curve as well because they have an unfamiliar layout and use non-standard elements. They tend to disregard a user's preferred colour scheme and font.

From a development and documentation point of view, the more inconsistent an interface is, the more difficult it is to develop and document. That makes it more difficult to use and more likely to have problems. Technical support would be chaos. Imagine trying to explain to someone how to start a recording: To start recording, click the button with the red, solid circle on it, unless you are using skin 2034, in which case you click the mauve, diamond shaped button next to the thing that looks like anvil, but don't click that if you are using skin 143 because that is the delete button. For that skin, click the orange button shaped like a cheesy, but be careful because the cheesy shaped button on skin 523 closes the file without saving any changes. And if you have skin 782, forget it. There is no record button, etc.

Or imagine a user has a uniquely designed skin and asks me, "Why isn't the blue and yellow polka-dotted, star shaped button working?" How am I supposed to respond? "Maybe you need to install the updated polka-dot driver?" :?

If you used Media Player on a friend's computer with a radically different skin, would you know how to use it right away? Would you even know it is Media Player? Would you be tempted to switch to a skin you were familiar with first? If you are visually impaired (some GoldWave users are), it would be that much harder to use.

Skins are eye-candy that do little to improve productivity. GoldWave is designed to be a productive program, not an entertainment program. Other than looking cool, I don't see any real advantage and the disadvantages are many. As you may have guessed by now, I'm an engineer, not a marketing person. Even so, I have relented slightly by adding some gradients and multicoloured buttons, but skins are not being considered. If people prefer to pay hundreds of dollars more just for eye-candy when they can get the exact same functionality for a fraction of the cost, then so be it. I prefer customers that look a little deeper. :wink:

Eye-candy is fun for about 5 minutes, but gets in the way when you need to get real work done. It reminds when I installed Windows XP for the first time. Having menus fading in looked cool at first, but within minutes I was looking for a way to turn off the effect.

Having said all that, suggestions for improving GoldWave's interfaces are always welcome.

Chris
McFortner
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:07 pm

Post by McFortner »

Chris, I like GW just the way it is visually. All those skins do is eat up memory that I could use to open bigger audio files! :)

Plus, I like the fact that just because you tuned up the engine so to speak you didn't "pimp up" the exterior to make it look faster. Just keep up the good work with the software. I like the looks of it just the way it is.

Michael
I liked Gold Wave so much, I bought the program! :wink:
Lipus
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 12:25 pm
Location: France

Post by Lipus »

I do like Goldwave interface, which I have been using now since 2003. Please keep Goldwave simple, clean, and as McFortner says, fast. What is important is the efficiency, not the look. We have just to look around us to see how many wonderful softwares are still using DOS old interface (please Chris, don't do that with GW!). When we pay a lot more Microsoft Office 2007 than M.O. 2003 it's only because the look has changed.
The most important think for me is that Goldwave is regularly updated in its efficiency. Please no silly memory consuming skins.

Thanks Chris and long life to Goldwave and its interface!
Stiiv
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 7:29 pm
Location: Fallentown, PA

Post by Stiiv »

Eye-candy is fun for about 5 minutes, but gets in the way when you need to get real work done.
What he said. :wink: A good example is a program I've been using to animate & lip-sync still pics with audio, Crazy Talk. It's a totally goofy non-standard interface that annoyed me from the first minute I used it, & now that I need to use it often it's really a pain in the neck.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it."
Stiiv
donrandall
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post by donrandall »

Chris -

If the kids want toys, let 'em go buy toys.

There are some of us who much appreciate what we have here and there are some who look at something else and can not think beyond saying "Ooooh, it's shiny!"

Goldwave is a tool. A great tool. A tool that works very, very well - - one that I use everyday. Please, please, please don't ever give in to the tinsel and flash crowd!

-Don-
mh
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:20 pm

Post by mh »

I've no prob with the way it looks - as Chris says, it's a tool, not a toy. A skinnable interface might be "fun", but I'd personally rather the development effort went into functionality instead.
7point62
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:38 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by 7point62 »

I'm happy with the way it looks too and I spend plenty of time sat in front of Goldwave - fancy graphics can get tiring after a short time I haven't even bothered too much with customising colours and toolbars - it's easy on the eye straight out of the box IMO.
Emmett
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:08 am

Post by Emmett »

Paying clients like to see flashing lights and shiny things. I have clients in my studio somewhat often, and they always get to see a nice show. Of course, in my case, GoldWave is not my primary audio program. Nonetheless, show clients a few lights and a nice interface and they really think they're getting their money's worth! Even when I'm grossly overcharging for voiceovers (like $1000/session), they keep quiet because my studio looks cool. Something to think about...

Emmett
Post Reply