Should Timeline contain small buttons for Solo "S" and Mute "M" and maybe a horizontal volume slider?
I remember this was mentioned by lasonic a few months ago while brainstorming mixer ui redesign. Basically the most commonly used funcitonality of hte mixer is to Solo, Mute, and adjust gain for each instrument. The current mixer ui is too big and has a bunch of other less-commonly used stuff. But the commonly-used functionlity could compactly be in the timeline, for instance like:
The other nice thing is that the mixer controls are all lined up, which makes it easy to visually compare each gain and which instruments are muted.
I should also note that the main mixer still has extra things like multiple channels for some instruments (e.g. pizz and tremelo channels for string instruments, as well as voice 1-4 control)...I wouldn't want those things to be also added to the timeline cause might be too much.
Comments
I should note that it might make sense to hide these controls...maybe via a right-click menu or a small show/hide button for this. Or maybe even better just allow the vertical line dividing the instrumnent name column from the instrument data column to be able to be extended further right to reveal these controls.
My primary issue with this is that it takes up a lot of space. Especially with the possible addition of https://musescore.org/en/node/233786, smaller screens could have a more difficult time.
If this is to be added, I think it would default as off in the beginning and could be turned on by right clicking to bring up a context menu and checking a box. This will allow users who will not be messing around with the mixing to avoid the extra clutter.
**NOTE: I did not see eric's comment as typing this**
In reply to My primary issue with this is by JoshuaBonn1
yeah, I imagine the controls not being visible by default. My favorite solution is to simply revel these controls one by one when expand the divider right past the longest instrument name. Although not the best way for discovery, I think people would still probably find out by accident or if read the manual, and since it is a redundant feature, it is not crucial that users discover it anyway.
In reply to yeah, I imagine the controls by ericfontainejazz
another advantage of expanding the divider is that the length of the volume sliders can grow if continue to drag right, incase the user wants more precision with the gain.
In reply to another advantage of by ericfontainejazz
I should say that I'm happy to implement this feature myself.
In reply to yeah, I imagine the controls by ericfontainejazz
I remember on the IRC you mentioned that clicking the divider could become difficult with additions right aligned. Do you still think that?
In reply to I remember on the IRC you by JoshuaBonn1
that was a thought. I'm not sure until try it out, tbh. Regardless, having the controls appear on the left won't work unless there was a blank space for them to appear over, without overlapping the first letter of each label. So I'm left thinking leaving icons on the right will have to do.
In reply to I remember on the IRC you by JoshuaBonn1
Maybe put a + button after the instrument name to indicate more info can be seen.
I'm more in favour of improving the mixer window than what I see as cluttering up the timeline UI.
In reply to I'm more in favour of by RobFog
the thing is hiding the basic mixer controls behind the divider line for instance is not cluttering up the timeline. Should the user never want that, they never need to see it.
The other problem is the main mixer GUI can not be simplified down too much, since it needs to have all these rarely used (but necessary) trivial things like midi output channel number and reverb and instrument names. So I think there is a genuine need for a simplified version of the mixer that contains the 10% of the controls that are used 90% of the time.
In reply to the thing is hiding the basic by ericfontainejazz
+
In reply to + by mike320
so mike is saying a simple expand icon, in this case a "+", would be all the additional clutter that is needed. I am advocating for simply hiding it all behind the adjustable divider.
I should also mentioned that back in April I was working on some reorganzieation of the mixer ui (https://github.com/ericfont/MuseScore/tree/reorganizeMixerUI)....in particular I was wanting to make it compact enough to be dockable, so user wouldn't have to have a floating mixer window which would cover up scoreview realestate. But the thing is this timeline presents a better opportunity for basic mixer controls, because it already has the instruments listed in a compact list.
In reply to so mike is saying a simple by ericfontainejazz
I felt my + idea would take care of issues of not being able to click on the expand line. It would also make it a little more obvious that it is there. There would, of course, be a hint box explaining why it is there.
In reply to the thing is hiding the basic by ericfontainejazz
I agree there's "a genuine need for a simplified version of the mixer that contains the 10% of the controls that are used 90% of the time".
But I don't think the timeline is the right place. In my opinion, making the function of UI elements clear-cut helps usability. I would consider the timeline as an element for navigation.
In reply to I agree there's "a genuine by RobFog
So the only think I can think of is either a simplified docakble mixer. But what I want to avoid is haveing to replicate all the instrument names.
Now, I've just had an idea to have the simplified mixer controls appear as a separate little dock which could labled "Mix" to distinguish it from the "Timeline":
Of course since I'm not showing instrument names in that mini mixer, this mini mixer would only make sense when the timeline is also present next to it. Also I'm not sure if things can be docked like this.
Edit: what I could do is have the mini mixer be aware about the presence and status of the timeline. If they are both docked next to eachother like this, then it could figure that out and then not bother replicating the instrument names.
If you add it, make it a separate column. Perhaps allow calling the context menu when on the
Measuresheader to allow enabling this extra column. Having it as a separate column means showing/hiding it becomes independent of stretching it's width; perhaps I'm perfectly fine with cut off instrument names but prefer a wider slider; while at other times it will be the other way around.However I'm also a bit hesitant and more likely to use a simplified 'real' mixer. I personally am likely to not be a big user of the timeline; but what it offers is a quick mostly horizontal overview of the score. If I'm working on an orchestral score, chances are I won't see all instruments in the timeline at one, because it would eat up too much vertical space. In that scenario, I might very well leave timeline to be a floating (nearly fullscreen) window toggled by an easy shortcut as navigation help: open it up, have the overview and navigate/select, close it again, continue work.
The mixer however (again, to me) is (currently) more likely to end up as a vertically docked window; upping the chance of it showing all instruments at once, and still leaving enough of the score visible on the nearly default widescreens of today.
Both dockable windows serve an entirely different purpose to me and I don't feel the need for the combination of them to exist. But as mentioned in the beginning of this post, if enough users do feel that need, then I vote for a column that can be hidden if desired.
In reply to If you add it, make it a by jeetee
> " I might very well leave timeline to be a floating (nearly fullscreen) window toggled by an easy shortcut"
FYI, the shortcut is F12 (replaces the "Navigator"). You could conceivably have the timeline full screen and then press F12 to bring it up when you need it.
> "The mixer however (again, to me) is (currently) more likely to end up as a vertically docked window; upping the chance of it showing all instruments at once,"
In fact I have a rewrite of the mixer I was working on which did just that. Each instrument on one line, and could be docked. I was at the point where I was implementing an expand button for each instrument to insert indented lines containing options for all channels of that instrument. I should note that the controls for each channel is something that couldn't be easily done with a mixer incorporated in the timeline, since it would have to insert additional rows. In that case, maybe the mixer should be kept separate from the timeline.
In reply to > " I might very well leave by ericfontainejazz
I believe it's better to keep them separated if we cannot merge them entirely.
The timeline displays one line per "Part" (the inner construct in MuseScore). On a part, we can have several channels for different voices, via the pizz/arco mechanism and we can also add more with instrument changes. These controls would not be available in the timeline right? So a change to one of these channels, and then a press on Mute or Solo in the timeline will have an unexpected result, whatever the result is (changing all channels for the part, or only changing the starting one...).
Somehow, it would still be good to have a more "in place" way to change the volume, pan, solo etc... of instruments. Maybe we could use the inspector for that when an instrument name, instrument change or staff text with channel is selected. It would have inconvenient of not giving a full picture of the mix.
In reply to I believe it's better to keep by [DELETED] 5
> "These controls would not be available in the timeline right? So a change to one of these channels, and then a press on Mute or Solo in the timeline will have an unexpected result, whatever the result is (changing all channels for the part, or only changing the starting one...)"
Well not quite what I was envisioning for simplified mixer in timeline, although I didn't explicitly state it here: The simplified mixer would handle the overall top-level gain/mute/solo for each entire Part.
> "it would still be good to have a more "in place" way to change the volume, pan, solo etc... of instruments"
I'm not too much a fan of that, since usually when mixing it nice to see the level compared with all the other instruments, and not just by itself. I would also want to keep inspect for score-editing only.
Anyway, since we can't fully merge the timeline with mixer, it seems the best course of action is for me to continue on with my previous branch https://github.com/ericfont/MuseScore/tree/reorganizeMixerUI where I was creating a slimmed down version of the mixer which could be docked, and which was hierarchical in that the top-level was only concerned with parts, while expanding could give control of each channel. I had sortof put that on hold...but I think now I have motivation to continue that.
In reply to > "These controls would not by ericfontainejazz
"usually when mixing it nice to see the level compared with all the other instruments"
True. Gain on an individual instrument is nothing but a wild guess. While gain with the other instruments is a good guess.
Please continue with the other branch to implement a more user friendly mixer UI. I have 2 requests:
1. Global solo/mute check boxes similar to the "All" box in the selection filter. This allows for much more ease in soloing and muting instruments, not to mention the visual that tells you a portion of the score is muted or soloed.
2. Do not allow anything to change simply scrolling on it. It's very annoying to have the instrument sound or gain change (among others) because you scroll by habit to get to a lower spot in the UI.
In reply to "usually when mixing it nice by mike320
for 1. what exactly would be the behavior? Would pressing global solo once set all solos on? And then pressing it again (or pressing it when all solos are already set on) will then set all solos off? Likewise for global mute?
2. :)
ok.
In reply to for 1. what exactly would be by ericfontainejazz
for 1. I would suggest a grayed out check mark if 1 or more (but not all) instruments have the attribute (mute or solo), clicking it would clear it and all instruments attributes. Clicking the unchecked box would check it and apply that attribute to all instruments. Selecting the attribute for every instrument would cause the box to automatically be checked.
I think clicking the gray check box to clear it would be the more common desire. Unsolo or unmute all instruments in a single click. I believe that checking it would be far less common because it is just as easy to mute or solo a couple of instruments.
The advantage of this would be in an orchestral arrangement. If you want to hear only the strings, you could ensure all check boxes are clear, then scroll down and select each string for solo. Someone might prefer to solo all instruments and mute a few in this scenario. The main reasons for the boxes of course are to clear all of them quickly and give a visual cue if there are any instruments muted or soloed. The default would be for both boxes to be empty.
One more thing I didn't previously request is that the master check boxes be continually visible in the mixer. This, of course, would require the minimum size of the mixer to be large enough to display the title bar, master check boxes and 1 instrument.
Guitar Pro 7 has its own timeline with some mixer settings
It takes quite some vertical room though and this screenshot must be taken on a very large display.
In reply to Guitar Pro 7 has its own by [DELETED] 5
I wanted to voice my support in following a similar design.
It could also be possible to completely avoid the use of a separate mixer window...however that means that there would need to be a way to configure the sub settings for instruments with multiple sounds, (for instance string tremolo and pizz). I'm thinking that maybe could have a little popup appear when click a special button or maybe mouseover which would direclty render these controls directly inside the timeline graphics view...for instance like this mockup:
Would have to have a few other controls like pan there. But just raising this as a possible way so don't have to have a separate dedicated mixer.
(note, expanding the instrument rows to allow for sub instrument controls would mean wouldn't work nicely with timeline cells...which is why I'm suggesting here to have this little popup control)
In reply to I wanted to voice my support by ericfontainejazz
I'm still in the not-so-enthusiastic camp about this merge.
Another concern popping into my mind (but not; I have *absolutely* no experience with) is the accessibility of the mixer functionality for our blind users. Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this (Marc?)
In reply to I'm still in the by jeetee
Of course it will be keyboard accessible.
In reply to I wanted to voice my support by ericfontainejazz
Using this as a step to totally eliminating the mixer is not good. It would leave no one screen where it is possible to see what is and is not muted/soloed, which is my most common use of the mixer.
In reply to Using this as a step to by mike320
What if could selectively only display the mixer portion, only display the cell data portion, or display both? That way if only want the mixer without timeline, then could have it work as a dedicated mixer.
In reply to What if could selectively by ericfontainejazz
I have much more interest in the mixer being easier to use than the timeline. I'm not too concerned about how to bring up the mixer, as long as I can. If it becomes easier than the current mixer, that's even better.
In reply to I have much more interest in by mike320
Agreed.
In reply to What if could selectively by ericfontainejazz
I'm imagining having the mixer be a dockable. If it is docked next to the timeline, then the instrument rows will be aligned to the timeline instrument rows, and there will be no need to display the instrument names again, so I imagine having the instrument names be automatically hidden. However when undocked, the instrument name column will be automatically enabled.
I will probably have all other columns be optionally enabled or disabled from a right-click context menu. That way someone who never uses pan, reverb, and chorus, for instance, never will have space wasted with those controls.