I discovered Reason when I was in my early twenties. It was great, ...even though at first glance it did look a bit daunting. A hellscape of never-ending, incomprehensible controls. Man, I've no idea what I'm looking at. W- What is all these stuff? H H H H ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ But it’s actually really intuitive: You drag audio units into a virtual rack, ...you wire them together, ...and hey presto! You now have the ability to construct incredibly
powerful synthesizers from the ground up. However, in the mid 2000s, ...due to increasing competition, ...technical growing pains, ...and some notably absent features, ...Reason began to feel a little bit inferior. And noticing this, ...Propellerhead realised they needed to
make some dangerous design decisions ...in order to get Reason to be the
all-singing, all-dancing workstation ...that everyone wanted it to be. And in this video, we’re going to look at that journey, ...because it offers us a masterclass
in design decision-making, ...from high-level strategic decisions ...down to the minute detail of how the
interface of Reason looks and feels. And this is the first in a series ...that will touch on different audio applications
from a musical and design perspective, ...and I’ll talk a little more about what’s next at the end. In 2005, I moved to London to study music composition ...and funded myself by working as a software designer. And from these two perspectives, ...I began to look at Reason in a very different way. As a composer, I wanted it to be a
full-blown digital audio workstation, (or DAW for short) ...with audio recording and professional mixing. But as a designer, I recognised that this
wasn’t a simple thing to just go and do. To grant this request, ...some very difficult design
challenges needed to be overcome. And we’re going to look at those
through a very specific lens ...something that’s rarely discussed in software design ...that I think needs to be called out more often: This is a blanket term I’m using ...for the practice of strictly adhering
to self-imposed design rules. The ideal is that by choosing a perfect vision, ...you can get close to achieving a ‘perfect’ application: Something immensely satisfying that
requires zero learning curve to use. And even though we all know perfection isn’t possible, ...it makes sense to try to achieve it, ...which is why when companies are
faced with unexpected roadblocks, ...there’s often an instinctive emotional reluctance
to deviate from the established vision, ...because if perfection is no longer the goal, ...then surely we’re moving in the wrong direction, right? And when I say ‘design rules’, ...I’m referring to everything: High-level strategic decisions, ...like defining your target audience. Company mantras stating broad principles like: ...or: Then there are mid-level design rules ...that state how your software is generally arranged, ...all the way down to tiny visual rules dictating things ...like the precise amount of pixels between controls. And you can add into the mix, ...a range of external design trends and ‘best practices’ ..which can also be very influential. Now, all of these things serve a practical purpose: Helping to set a common vision for
designers, CEOs and investors alike, ...while avoiding the organisational chaos that can
occur when people go off and do their own thing. And as you probably guessed, ...this video is about the difficult moments
where you need to break these rules, ...where you should be non-ideological. Simple in theory ...but often pretty difficult in practice. So lt’s start with a simple, small-scale
example of a general trend. If you work in design, ...you’ve most likely come across ...the practise of setting a limit on
the number of clicks or presses ...it takes to get from one place to another. The phrase ...is pretty common in the world of design. And although the intention is good, ...it nearly always results in upfront clutter like this: W- W- Wow. What am I looking at here? God. T- There's options for my options. H H H H ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ ∀ For websites like Amazon, ...this type of principle makes a lot of sense. ...but in other cases ...it doesn’t. So let’s now apply it to something
generally regarded as being well-designed: The iPhone menu. We’d get in trouble pretty quickly if we
want to change, say, accessibility settings. One, ...two, ...three, Uh-oh! 3-click rule says this isn't good design. We need all those options in
one gargantuan scrolling list. I hope your accessibility issue
wasn’t carpal tunnel syndrome! Another ideal designers worry about on a daily basis is Obviously, if an app behaves in a consistent way, ...it’s going to be easier for people to
navigate it without getting confused. Imagine you were making a website ...that used the colour red to mean ‘No’ ...and green to mean ‘Yes’, Then it would be a pretty big mistake ...if your credit card details page was styled like this: However, at the structural level, ...the topic 'consistency' gets a bit more complicated. Back to my earlier example of wanting
to find things quickly on the iPhone. Apple eventually realised that
their menu was slightly clunky ...when it came to common tasks
like turning on and off WiFi. And because they didn’t want to break with
the perfectly good system they’d already built, ...they, instead, took a lesson
from Android and Ubuntu Mobile ...by introducing the Control Centre with iOS 7. A necessary halfway house that broke with both
the look and logic of the rest of the system. Usability before consistency. Good Apple. You get one point for that. And with this in mind, ...we can now start talking about the massive
design problems Propellerhead faced. By the time we got to Reason 5, ...it had two major consistency rules: First, ...anything that produced sound was represented
as a physical piece of hardware. This real-world representation made
it easy to ‘get’ how Reason worked, ...but this came with limitations. Mimicking the real world in this way requires
that you observe the rules of physics, ...especially the idea that everything
has to wired up in order to work. So if I wanted to do something complex, ...like send an audio signal to multiple different places, I’d have to first send it to this thing: ...a unique device that splits the signal, ...giving me multiple outputs, ...each of which I then have to wire
to the intended device manually. Programs like Logic Pro use a more abstract system, ...where you can send an audio
signal to a different place ...by selecting it from a disconnected dropdown. The link between elements is implied, ...more in line with other music creation apps. And although this is faster, ...it’s not necessarily better. Apps that rely too much on abstract
connections can be difficult to learn, ...which can dissuade first-time
users from ever coming back. So even though Reason’s literal
system was sometimes clunky, ...it was easy to understand ...and also kind of fun too. The other major consistency rule of Reason ...was that all sound have to be triggered by MIDI, ...either written in manually ...or recorded externally on a keyboard. If you wanted to use pre-recorded audio of any kind, ...you had to import it into a sampler ...and then trigger it using a MIDI signal. You couldn’t just record audio directly in, ...because... ...that wasn’t really what it was originally intended for. But due to these limitations, ...Reason was really streamlined. Everything worked the same way. However, on the other hand, ...programs like ...were introducing features that
directly competed with Reason. They began to look like the better overall choice. Great synths ...and the ability to record and mix live audio. And there was definitely a point around 2005 ...where Reason looked in danger of becoming obsolete. So, recognising this, ...Propellerhead began planning to offer
audio-recording and proper mixing. And here’s where they came up
against a massive design challenge: In order to offer any of this stuff, ...they needed to break not one, ...but both of their core consistency rules. Let me explain. Up to Reason version 5, ...you first created your instrument ...and then you hooked it up to a
main mixer at the top of the rack. If you didn’t do this, ...you didn’t hear anything. And since each mixer contained only 14 channels, ...you often needed to awkwardly chain multiple
mixers together to get more than that. And this is why audio recording posed
such a large structural problem. Imagine how bad it would be if every
time you wanted to record a new take ...you had to manually wire the channel to a mixer? It would never fly. Audio recording needed to be automatic, ...and you needed a lot more channels too. And so Propellerhead took the brave decision
to allow multiple inconsistencies. First, they introduced a virtual mixer
that lived outside the rack, ...and which had no visible connection to the devices. This meant that when you wanted
to create a new audio track, ...it was represented by this
piece of imaginary hardware, ...which just popped into existence. It wasn’t wired in any visible way. You just had to learn that for every
one of these you had in your rack, ...a channel existed for it somewhere in your mixer. And by allowing audio to be recorded
and played back independent of MIDI, ...a whole bunch of new interface controls were needed, ...which took away from the app's simplicity. This can’t have been an easy decision for Propellerhead, ...breaking with the traditions that had put it on the map. And I’d love to know how many arguments
it caused in the design studio. But I think it was the right decision. Rather than sticking to an ideal, ...they risked complicating their
existing system and forged ahead, ...making sure that everything new they created
was as fun and Reason-like as possible. The result is an app that’s infinitely better than before, ...albeit with a slightly higher learning curve. So now, let’s take a look at Reason
from a slightly different point of view. One of the problems of interface design ...is that things go in and out
of fashion relatively quickly. And when journalists write about
specific examples of ‘bad practice’, ...say in web design, ...it can gain traction, ...often influencing designers working
on something completely different, ...like a game or operating system. For example, I can’t count the amount of times I’ve seen ...mobile app controls ending up on the desktop. Oh look! Pitchfork have this hamburger menu now. Uh... My whole screen is taken over, ...so I can see the same options I already have here. Have you ever heard of a rollover menu? Oh, Pitchfork. The best place to go for all the latest showbiz goss. Cool. Oh look. Pharell! That's three names I know! Let’s look at an article that came out last year, titled: ...which criticises a variety of music-creation apps ...for their heavy use of something called: For those who don’t know, ...'skeuomorphism' is a tedious design buzzword ...that refers to the practice of basing
interactive elements on real physical objects, ...like a slider mimics the way a- uh, ...slider works. Or... I know there’s another example. Um... pretty common. What are they called again? Uh- oh yeah, And one thing to note about
skeuomorphic design is that ...just because it works like a real thing
doesn’t mean it has to it look like a real thing. Case in point, the older versions of Apple’s IOS. For some reason, the iPhone just
keeps popping up in this video. Back then, iBooks used to look like an actual bookshelf, ...until a few versions later ...when Apple finally realised that
it was pointless and awful-looking. And due to the large amount
of commentary on this topic, ...'skeuomorphism' became a bit of a dirty word. Bad Apple. That's -1 point for you. So let's scroll down through the article, ...past some admittedly bizarre-looking plugins. I mean, what the hell is this? A criminally terrible use of space. And oh look! A little section on Reason! A- And why is that bad? Oh, that’s it? 'It’s bad because skeuomorphism is bad.' End of critique. I guess it’s just lost on the author ...that one of the advantages of
designing an interface in this way ...is that it helps complicated things to be
separated out into visually distinguishable parts. Or that the mimicking of real-world analog devices ...is very useful for young musicians ...because it actually teaches them
about how these things work in real life? But hold on, ...there’s more insight to be had! W- What? Okay, let’s put that statement to the test. So in most music software, ...knobs work like this: You click and drag downwards
or upwards to change the value. And most commonly, if you hold 'shift', ...then the control is much finer
so you can hit precise values. In other apps like After Effects or Premiere, ...you can drag on these text values
in exactly the same way. This is about as efficient as it gets, ...and knobs are just a different-looking
version of the same thing. But you might rightly ask, "Can’t we just show text values instead of
knobs then if they're the same thing?" Well, let’s take a look: Here’s a synth in Reason that has lots of knobs. So let's replace them with text values then. Hmm. Okay, so first off, ...unlike knobs, ...I have no idea of what the maximum
or minimum of any of these values are, ...meaning I’ve lost information. And I can no longer quickly glance at any area
to get a rough idea of how it’s arranged. I have to read each value one by one to comprehend it. This is compounded by the fact that ...MIDI parameters often range from -64 to 63, ...meaning that I’ve no common baseline. ‘0’ could mean either ‘nothing at all’ ...or ‘right in the middle’. Not to mention, if I have an external keyboard ...and I turn one real knob, ...I can no longer see its equivalent turning in the UI. So figuring out how these things are connected
is much more time-consuming too. Yep. You see why they chose knobs? This is a type of criticism Reason's faced for years, ...one they've rightly ignored ...because they understand better than
most the value of their unique mechanics. I'm giving this article an 'E-'. Congratulations. You didn't get an 'F'. I gave you extra credit for not mentioning Hitler. I gave you extra credit for not mentioning ̶H̶i̶t̶l̶e̶r̶. I gave you extra credit for not mentioning Patsies. And one last point about this
whole skeuomorphism thing: If you think these controls look a bit lame ...and you’d like to see something more modern ...like the Yofiel Synth seen here, ...then fine. But just don't make the mistake of
assuming that because they look cheesy, ...that they’re bad from an interaction point of view. Elements like this are only bad
when they’re being misused. If my dog gets sick ...and I choose to cure him with a spanner ...and he died, ...his death isn’t the fault of the spanner. It’s his own goddamn fault for getting sick. Anyway, the most recent improvement Propellerhead
made marks yet another big reversal for them: Finally providing VST plugin support, ...something they said they’d never do in the past, ...so much so that when their
CEO made the announcement, ...he started with the words Instead of persisting with the argument that
VSTs reduce stability and performance, ...they, instead, allowed us to decide
on that trade-off for ourselves, ...and as a result, gave us a massively
improved range of choice, ...allowing me to finally use
my favourite synth of all time. So before I talk about what software
I’m going to be looking at next, ...let’s give one last hurrah for Propellerhead
and their practical design decision-making, ...both small and large-scale. They’ve had some bumps along the way, ...but they’ve always rebounded to make
the right choices in the right order. Well done, Propellerhead. You get a point. And if you wouldn’t mind, ...I’d also love a point. So, what's next? What other music software app can we look at ...that can offer us the same
level of unique design insight? Oh. Oh. Oh, jesus. Jesus christ. J̵̥̗͐͆͑́̓͗̾͒̄̔͂̔̓͛̍̕͝ ̵̛̭̜̯̻̖͕̦͉͎͖̰͈̗̮̝̑̇̽͂̅̃̏̏̃̂̾͒̈́̀̎̎e̶̛̛̦̣͙̝̦͎̟͒̓̏̏͂̌̑͂̿̚͘͜ ̴̢͙̤̘͆̈́̋̈́̓̇͑̇̇̎͂s̶̛̥͍͚̱̖ ̵̢͓͔̳̦̣̗̩̜̰̘͚͍͉̩̇ȕ̸̢̨̻̖̣̠̣̫̩̣̥̳̤̰̙͒̃̏̈́̏̅̏̇̓͜͜͝s̵̡̲̝̞̫͙͖̪͍̫̜͉̬̱̯̄͋͗̾̒͌̈͛̏̀̑̄̈́͘͝ ̴̡̨̫͈̙͓̮͖̲͕͉̘̺̇͊̒͒́̈́̎̅̌͛͜ͅc̷̡̛̜̱̊̿͌̊͒̏̓͗̋͋̚͝͝ ̴̫̭͚̻̠̺̤̪̮͇̩̠̮̫̃͌͑͛̏̿́̈́̏́͜͠ ̸̨̘̣̗́̓̌͛̌̑́͘̚͘̕h̷̛̩̳̦̠̼̗͕̥͚͇̭̯̠̃́̉͂̎̈́̈́̋̏̿̅́͝ ̴̨̭̘̼̾̐̊̏̐̿̎͊̇́̍͝ͅr̴̘̭̈́͋́i̶̡̨̙̬̞̬̼̲̫̣̹̼̫͗̊͋͂̈́͘̚ͅş̷̠͙̋̇̐̑̄̄̈́̽ ̸̥̈́̎̇̾̓̓̃̀̂̚͝ ̸̗͈̯̼̗̳̦͈̖͕̐̂̊̊͂́̿̾̆͑̽̎̋̍̚̚͜͠t̴̢͈̟̳̦̺̒̃͊̾̍̂́͋̑̉̏͘͘̕͝ ̴̢͍͉͓̺̗̬͉͎̝̠͈̻͐̓͜ͅ ̶̵̴̣̮̞͇͙̟̗̹͍͎̖̹̻̗̼̂͂́͌̊͐̉̊̓̄͌͘͝͝J̸̵̵̢̛̜͚͍̼̣̼͖̘̬̺̝̱̫̈͐̓̑̀̐̄̔̄̚̕ ̶̶̴̢̢͙̘̩̻̦͓̰̙̰̀̀̐̊̑́̾̑̈͑̃̒͌̑̅ ̴̷̷̨͇̯̟̺̬̖͈͖̎̅̊͒̈͒̓̌̓̉̎͊͆̋̉̄̀̂̀͆̆̚̕̕͝ ̵̶̵̡̻̫͉͓̥̜̭̜͔̜͖̹͚̩̘̲̪̱͎̫͍̍̾̉̀̓͌̈̑̀̏̓̀̈́̉̃̓͐̚͠͠ ̴̵̸̨̧̧̛̹̮̳̥̪̩̤̝̤̳͗̆̏̎͋̏̏̑͆̒͛̃̐͠͝ ̸̴̴͖̦̜͉̗͓̰̺̲̫̖̙̖́̌̈́́̚̕͜͠ẹ̶̷̶̡̧̨̡̠͎̻͕͉͕͉̰̫͆́̄̈̌͆́̚̕̚ ̵̵̵͓̜̺̺̗̺̻̯͆́͋̒̆͑̔̒̆̈̈́̓͒̔́̕̚͜͜ ̷̶̵̨̡̞͇̝͕̘̱̦̈́̌͆̊̐͋̽̈̓͜͝͝͝ ̴̵̵̨͇̮͎̺̙̥̲̜̠͇̞̟̖̇̀̓͌̓̓̏̿͘͘ ̷̴̸̧̛̝̠͙̳̫̲̝̮͉̏̓̈́͆̌͐̕ ̷̴̷̡̡͈̼̻̭̞̱̰̹̙̎̊̂̂̀͋̅̀͜͜͠s̴̸̸̛̘̳̙͎͓̬̳̈̉̀̂̓͛́̒͗͜͝͝ ̸̸̷̡̢̛̦̣̩̦̪͔̱̹͔̜̤͍̦̦͇̭͕̭̫͔̰̿̎̀̽͗́̄̉̿̇̾̒͌̚̕͠͝͝ͅȕ̶̴̴͓̟̦̯̙̱̜̞̘̹̰͇̈́̎́̂͒̇̈̉̚͜ͅ ̶̵̷̨͚̫̱̙̩̦̜̪̦̖̫̰̪̃̐̓̍͑͌͆̊̓̚͠͝ ̴̶̷̢̡̜̭̙̼̤̟̰̘͍̜̭̯̯̓͊͗̎͊̄̒̉̐͐͂͠ ̶̷̸̢̭͉̩̣̬̺͍̄̆̒̌̑̅̊̏͛̈̓͛̅̕͝ͅs̸̴̵̢̼̬̿͂̄̐̿̓̏̌̆̄̀̓̋̾̐̏̂͆̕͘̚̚ ̴̸̸̡̨̺̫̦̰̹̩̙͉̬̙͙͇̞̜͓͂̌̂̓̂̓ͅ ̶̶̴̧̢̨̼͈̩͕̺̤̬͎̙͕̙̘̲̹͖̯͔̠̘͓̟̠̈́͗̎͒̈́̈́̅ͅ ̶̴̵̣̣̗̱͙͚̞̥̞͖̙̦̘̻̫̰̜͕̌̈́́̒̓̾͐̉̆̔̑̒͌͌̐͘͜ ̵̵̸̨̣̟̺̹̬̯̱̝̍͊̃̈̀̇̇̏̏̆̎̀̕͝ç̷̸̶̧̢̛̜̟͖͖͖̟̘͍̤̥̿̈͒̿̓́͆̏͌̆̽̈́̂͌̑̉̀̃͊͌̉̓ ̸̸̷̛͈͙̩̟̫̞̞͎̪̺̅̓̋̍͂̀̅̃̅̑̿̈͜ ̸̵̸̢̟̙͙͉̪̗͙̦̻̣̳̹̒̔̊͂̋̌̏̓̍̉̿͌̈͆̐͒̕͜ ̸̶̷̨̜̱̦̥̳̪̦̳̘̠̬̘͕̪̘͖͇̺͊̃̓̿̎̾̇̄̍̊̌́̈́͛̃̌̕͜h̷̶̷͙͙̲̑̈͛̾̏̇͝ͅ ̸̶̴̻̪͙̲̣͙̭̝̜̝̺͗̑̈́͗̈́̆̎̑̒͑̑̉̚̚͜r̵̵̸̛̻̝͇̠̤̫̙̯̹̤͙̙̱͖̒͆̅̅̀̌͛͋͗̔͛̀͘͠ͅ ̵̶̸̧̘̘͇̤͔̭̥̘̬̫̜̄͗̂̉̽̉͌́͑̆̒͐̐̚͘͜͝ ̶̶̷̤͉͕̤̮͖̲̫͚̩̲͓̭͗̈̆͐͊̿̇̈́̈́́̚ ̷̴̸̨̧̨̧̢͚̬͍͈̙̠̼̠̼̝͍̩̯̦̺̲̞̎͂̂͒͑̇́̆̊͘ǐ̸̸̵̢̭̥̣̭̝̙͈͔̥̱͈̓͗̽̃́͐̍̄̊̉̾̚ ̸̵̷̢̧̹̠̠̙̲͉͖͖͔̫̰͖̖͆͋͗͂̑͒̓̋̾͗̐͑ ̶̵̸̰͓̰̘͔͍̘̦̈́͌̈́̓̄̽͗̆̄̑͑̇͆̓͘̕͝͝ ̵̷̴͈͓̦̦̔͂̔̑̂̋̀̓̿͝͠ş̶̵̷̛̝̳̭̠͎̯̳̼̣̟̻̖̠́͒́̉̐̅̉͑̊̎̑͆͂͊̂̑͝ ̴̸̷͔̲̠̪̼̝̝̩̻͉̗̰̼͖̩̦̬́͆̃̎͂̿̉̀͒̅͋̾̾̎̓͐̍̿̇̉͝͝ͅ ̷̵̶̨̳̺͈̬͓̼̤̜̮̖̘͊͗̆͂̄̈́̍̈́̄̍͆̅̐̈́̉͠ ̴̵̶̨͈̤͓̣͚̮̰̙͙̹̊͆̔̿̓́͂̔̎̀̍̏͐̒͝t̴̵̴̡̧͕̺̹̺̫͈̦̤̫̥͇͚̼̦͗̒͋̉̐̏̀̈́̓̀͌̈̉̈́̇͘̚͜ ̵̷̶̺̘̮̜̙̙̝͈̘͈̤̱͔̻̄̌͂̽̉̃́̎̕̚͘͝ ̴̴̷̡̢̨̪̺̜̻̘̫̥͖̦̬̖̘̯̞͓̥̥͓̽͆͊̌̈́͗
Hmm... went to hit subscribe-- and I already was! Keep up the great work! This video was great, and apparently your other ones were too!
Fantastic video
Almost all music software is terrible. For some reason I don't understand, everyone likes to pretend that 70s analogue synths and/or hi-fi systems were the pinnacle of design and everyone should work like that.
I don't have physical interfaces. I didn't work with 70s or 80s kit. I got into music through the 6851 and later by controlling synths off my Atari ST. I want plug-in interfaces that suit my environment, not some pretend analogue past.
Take Ultrabeat. I mean, seriously - WTF. I'm working on a computer - give me computer-like controls please.
Great vid! It's a shame that skeuomorphism was wholly disparaged 5 years ago because of a few poor decisions by Apple in a mobile OS. What resulted in the "course correction" that followed was the most uninspired, arrogant and lazy design ethos the world has ever known: flat design.
My dream is to see all flat design adherents publicly identified, fired, and blacklisted from ever being able to ruin another product or service or ui.
Skeuomorphism isn't bad and in most cases is good. There can be bad skeuomorphism design of course but as we've seen from the complete and total failure of flat design, simply getting rid of it isn't a design philosophy, it's an easy cop out from talentless design ui "experts" who desperately want to be thought of as visionary.
That was a really fun video, thanks
I love the analog design to reason...makes it easy to use my analog knowledge without 50k -1mil in gear
I find "teaches them how these things work in real life" a bit odd. Surely making music in the box is more 'real life' now than the expensive, unreliable, relatively in flexible hardware alternatives :)
Great video. Fun and insightful. Another challenge in audio is designing an interface that we don't necessarily have to look at to use. I often close my eyes after I grab a virtual knob or slider so as to defer to my ears. Mapped controls are even better for this. I think that it would be cool if someone designed a DAW that was controlled via voice command. Some sort of physical control would probably still have to come into play. Maybe a 3D track pad...