An overarching temposync UI/UX plan

[Andreya-Autumn]

We've discussed this on and off but never made an issue.

Massive X does this:

Which is very nice.

The num/denom is a UI idiom that we're implementing in some other places too (audio rate procs, phasor speeds) now, so we could definitely do something similar.

There are some questions to answer (some of which we need to answer whether we use this solution or not), including:

• How many of these ratio notches should a temposync param have?
• How do we deal with type-ins Knob RMB type-in box doesn't work with tempo sync values #1347
• How should a temposynced param respond to automation/modulation?

[Andreya-Autumn]

"How many notches" I think is tricky to answer. If we steal the MX design straight up, the answer is probably five. Which might be ok maybe?

OTOH, I had an idea which was basically that we can have something called a "temposync map" which is a user editable list of ratios (UI TBD), which dictates the values a time param will snap to.

You could then make the default temposync map be the same ratios we've been using in Surge etc. Prime limit 3, that is. And if someone* wants quintuplets and 5 sixteenth notes and the like, they edit the map and put in 4/5, 5/4 etc.

Then we don't have to show all the ratios next to the knob/slider, which would let us do more options.

[Andreya-Autumn]

*someone == me. Let's be real. :)

[mkruselj]

The point of seeing the ratios outright is that you see what you're switching to. Hiding that away behind a map or a tooltip is hampering the UX.

[Andreya-Autumn]

Only allowing 5 ratios is also doing that wouldn't you say? Especially if we get temposync+modulation (and thus automation) working I can really imagine Kinsey (and the others who wanted it in Surge) being a bit bummed about only having 5 temposynced speeds.

Maybe showing the ratios in the tooltip is enough?

[mkruselj]

After using MX for a long time I don't think putting the ratios in the tooltip is gonna cut it... but it seems like we don't really have a choice. It's definitely problematic, because we really don't have that much room to show even five (if you go by how the phasor page looks like in the wireframe)...

[mkruselj]

OK now I just thought of another option that might save us. If we have a knob arc but show the current ratio inside the knob, that would solve the display so at least you know which one you're on. You won't be able to see which one you are going to, though. Unsure how problematic that would be.

Also, the knob arc should probably show notches on it so that you can see how many steps to go through there are (this would automatically refresh depending on the number of ratios you put into the map).

Quick KnobMan mockup:

[Andreya-Autumn]

Good idea! I do wonder if it'd look weird with knob bodies engaged. But we can probably make it work!

[mkruselj]

I think the idea is fully incompatible with knob bodies and would look strange af. So even if knob bodies are enabled, in this case the knob should not have the body.

[Andreya-Autumn]

You don't think rotating the ratio along with the knob body is a good idea? 🙃

Jokes aside, yeah I guess that works. Or you could just say if knob bodies are on you have to make do with the tooltips. Which is also fine.

[mkruselj]

No, that completely changes the UX when knob bodies are just a visual feature. It should not be detrimental to the experience, which in this case it would be.

[Andreya-Autumn]

Hmmm... I see your point but I don't know that that's necessarily the case. Which of the knob body and the ratio is the better experience isn't objective. Under modulation the ratio would often be wrong for example. Personally I'm fine reading the tooltips (and I like knobs better than no knobs as you know).

[mkruselj]

Regardless I don't think it's a good choice to make in this case. I don't think enabling knob bodies should completely make you reliant on just the tooltip to see the current ratio. It is a bad design.