If you’re making a hardware instrument, then you should be thinking about the ratio of hardware to software, because it plays a key factor in the musician’s success in using the instrument. I’m referring to the balance of a display’s physical real estate and the amount of hardware controls (buttons, pads, faders, knobs, etc). I know this is an imprecise measurement, since displays can have differing resolutions, and controls can be multifunctional, but I think it’s a good high-level metric to frame up this conversation.
How it Impacts Usability
There is a kind of art to seamlessly integrating a display with buttons. There are different ways to approach the relationship of controls to the display:
- Soft Keys – in this arrangement, unlabelled controls (usually buttons) are positioned to correspond to typically equally-divided portions of a display. The display may then show a button label on-screen next to a physical hardware button—essentially creating a dynamic label for that button to adopt the corresponding function. See this approach on the Polyend Tracker.
- Disparate Controls – in this arrangement, we see control that do correspond to on-screen elements, but they are not positioned directly next to that element. Therefore, unlike Soft Keys, on-screen elements may mirror the layout of these hardware controls, but they lack the adjacent labelling that Soft keys supply. For example, the “Q-Links” (encoder knobs) on a modern Akai MPC, the 7-segment LCD on a Roland P-6, and the complete disconnection of the display from all controls on any Pocket Operator by Teenage Engineering.
- Touchscreen – in this arrangement, the display itself is an interactive control, but we rarely see this not being paired with corresponding hardware controls—whether Soft Keys or other Disparate Controls. Most of these examples are entirely software-based applications, such as Korg Gadget, which is an app that runs on iOS devices, among others. Which brings us to…
- MIDI controllers – this is rare, but some devices are meant to be controlled using external MIDI controllers, such as a DAW or piano AUV3 module. I’m not really counting these in this conversation.
- Combinations Thereof – there are many examples of combinations of the above
Each of these has pro and cons, but lets’ discuss them according to human-centered design principles. As we know, some type of interactive controls are more “usable” than others; a mechanical button is very satisfying and obvious to press, while an encoder requires finer motor skills while yielding much more utility. A touchscreen offers far more flexibility, yet trades tactility and ergonomics. A fader is fun to use, but is limited in its practical applications.
There is no one-size-fits-all choice. Most devices require more than one type of controller, and so we must consider the impact of multiple types of controllers on a given device. The basic rule is that there is a compounding cognitive load with each different type of control added. If your device can get away with a single type of button, like the Dirtywave M8, it’s really a lovely and simple experience.
But if you find your device growing into 3 or more different types of controls, like an Ableton Push, then there will be multiple costs to be paid:
- The user will need extra time to build complex muscle memory with the device, which puts it at a stark disadvantage to more focused instruments that are quicker to master
- The product team needs to consider the application of many different controls across each function of the device, and then design to accommodate them, so product creation is exponentially more complex, which has a knock-on effect to future feature additions
- With lots of different controls, the device can simply appear daunting to try.
- Lots of different controls means lots of physical real-estate to fit them into.
…of course, the upsides are also numerous:
- If the user does master it, then they’ll likely stick with it longer because its extended set of capabilities will keep the user from needing to use other devices
- Lots of different controls typically enable lots of controlled input—giving the device tons of flexibility and utility.
- Many controls can enable tons of expression when it comes to inputting notes, which is good.
How it Impacts Fun
This is really subjective, but not actually difficult to measure. Surveys asking users to rank their devices according to how fun they are to use over the time they’ve spent would be helpful. I haven’t run this particular test (yet), but I expect we’d start to see a trend on axis X showing that small, focused devices are fun while big, feature-rich DAW-replacements are less fun.
On axis Y, I think we’d see that users have spent more time with devices they see are fun, while less fun devices have not received much time investment. An important note on this, though: expecting users to invest tons of time in an unusable device will still result in a frustrating experience. When asked, users recall the difficulty they had in mastering their complex device rather than the ‘fun’ they have once it’s mastered. On the flip side, users are excited to share how easy to master their simple, focused device was before recommending it.
There is no right or wrong, there is user preference, and different types of users have differing preferences. This highlights the importance of gaining and maintaining a deep understanding of your customers. I’ve experienced musicians being focused on having fun while making their music, while others forcibly limit themselves to a single device for the sake of simplicity or cost consciousness.
Myself, for example—I highly prize portability and fun. So large, studio-bound devices like MPCs don’t hold much appeal for me. I also prefer to utilize a single hardware device before mixing & mastering in a DAW. My friend is very happy doing everything in Ableton, while another producer I know insists on old-school sampling vinyl into his Native Instruments Maschine before chopping and finishing the track on-device.
But fun is addictive. And that is a powerful variable that is at our disposal as product creators. So then, what makes a product fun? I wrote about that here: What Makes a Product Fun?
How it Impacts Future-proof-ness
Design it in From the Start
I covered this a lot in my review of the Polyend Tracker Mini, because it’s a great example of how to do this well. If every button on your device is labelled, then it’s going to be difficult to add a feature that you never planned for when the hardware was created. So the question then becomes, should you add it, even if the experience can’t be that good? Probably not. The cost of forcing new features where they weren’t designed to be typically cannibalizes existing positive usability, making a device that might have started off good, turn bad.
If you want your product to be able to gracefully accommodate new features, then ideally you should design ’empty’ space for them into the product at the beginning. Otherwise, you can end up with key-combo soup to access features like what happened on the Roland SP-404mkii post-launch. But if you design the space into the device to start, then it can gracefully accommodate a certain amount of new, unforeseen features. While this will vary on a per-product basis, it generally feels like a product that actually has some breathing room, rather than every nook and cranny being crammed full of menus, info and controls.
Perhaps the most effective way to approach this is to consider non-static, dynamic interface schemes, such as a set of unlabelled controls that sit alongside the display. These can change functionality according to the display’s adjacent content.
Adding Unplanned Features Post-Launch
We don’t always have the luxury of seeing into the future. We launch a product, then users tell us it should have always had X feature. There is no simple approach to this, so we do the best with what we have to work with. And we do have a solid set of best practices at our disposal:
- Repeat existing interaction patterns to make the new feature easy to learn
- Piggyback on existing information architecture to make the new feature discoverable
- Don’t forget to consider adding support for users workarounds… sometimes the best way to support a user is to make your instrument play more nicely with other gear. For example, if your new feature is an onboard sequencer, how have users been sequencing to-date? Maybe you can improve MIDI and USB support to better support their existing workarounds.
- Consider ergonomics—not just control labels—when creating new key-combos to integrate new features. Playing Twister with your fingers isn’t fun, and can be impossible for those with different ergonomic abilities.
- Consider deferring the feature to the next iteration of the instrument, when it can be designed in properly.
Also published on Medium.com
