“If you don’t give thought to design, users will not take to the technical tools you’ve created.”
Some tools blend these two main functions. Reason, which you mentioned earlier, offers a wide spectrum of functions both in terms of synthesis and simple musical structure, which allows users to compose a musical piece from A to Z. However, as it has been marketed to a very broad audience as a “simplistic electronic music” device, it fails to impose itself as a groundbreaking tool and to exploit the tremendous potential of digital environments.
CADI: In his final thesis Aurélien addresses the real/virtual paradox of those tools which, though virtual, strive to imitate the modes of interaction of real-life devices, thereby limiting their own possibilities.
T.B: The issue of virtual systems seen as metaphors of the real world is one of my main research and teaching topics. Computers offer tremendous possibilities which, unfortunately, cannot easily nor immediately be understood or perceived by users. Manufacturers are thus endeavoring to immerse users in interfaces that echo familiar devices. This explains why computer software – though often very complex – often imitates real-world tools, such as mixing tables, cables, switches and synthesizer potentiometers. However, this is a pity because on a functional level digital “virtual” tools are way more versatile and give more outstanding results than “real” tools. Yet as people are not yet attuned to the physical and aesthetic representation of these functions, they stick to those they are familiar with. This quite simplistic way of handling things totally prevents us from realizing how much power lies within computers.
MUE - Auréien Pasquier's final degree project carried out with the help of Thomas Bottini, 2008-2009
CADI: What are the main lines of research in the field of computer music applied to creation and computer-assisted musical composition?
T.B: Computer music is a fairly complex and cross-disciplinary environment. Therefore your question could be answered in about a hundred different ways. Computer capacities have increased so much over the past sixty years that these tools could potentially become a real puzzle for end-users. The aim is to design clear, easy-to-use and easy-to-understand interfaces that make the most of the huge array of functions. We should stop just trying to find ever-more powerful synthesis algorithms – technically we now have the means to do anything we want. Our real mission is to understand which interfaces, which representations and which types of body language should be implemented to enable users to interact with the wide range of functions available. For now, this objective is not within close reach, primarily because we still use rigid, tedious and ill-conceived working tools. So far, only very few designers and ergonomists have actually studied this type of tools. We’re just getting started and a lot of work still lies ahead.
“Tools must not remove human intelligence”
CADI: So the real challenge is to create interfaces that are easy to use?
T.B: Before facilitating use we should first design an interface that would give users a clearer picture of the devices they are handling. Synthesizers are fitted with rows of buttons that all have their own specific function so users can easily understand how they work. However on computers, users often have to navigate through multi-branched and very complex menus which are difficult to grasp on a sensory and sensitive level. Therefore before we even decide to guide users we must first bring them to some sort of sensory awareness of the tool they are using.
CADI: What role could designers play in this context?
Page 2 of 6 | Previous page | Next page
