Lighting Control User Interfaces

[Andrew C]

Whilst preferring "real buttons" myself, I did suggest some time ago a large (>30") touch screen that could be laid out like, and behave as, whatever desk you like. Say a 500 series one day, a Congo the next, and an SP30 for the weekend.

[paradoxism]

I think the key part of the OP statement is that they were talking to someone who was using MagicQ PC for the "first time". I've never yet come to a desk and loved the control instantly because it takes a while to get to know a desk just like anything.

 

I had the same reaction to MQ when I first looked at it. Then I used it on a show with a touchscreen and a PC wing and I was sold on it. The more I use it the more impressed I am. Trying to use it with a mouse and no interface would be very tedious but that isn't how it was designed to be used and the fact that you can (and for free!) is just a useful side effect.

 

I quite like the idea of the Entec Wing which can be attached to various consoles via ethernet. You could expand this idea further and have a series of input wings built for different purposes (theatre / touring / moving heads) get to know the one you use and have the ability to plug it into a number of different desks (as suggested in a previous post).

 

Personally I like faders that I can easily take live control of, even during a preprogrammed show, but as I do a lot of review / dance type shows which can change from one show to the next then that is a function I find useful.

[indyld]

Trying to use it with a mouse and no interface would be very tedious but that isn't how it was designed to be used and the fact that you can (and for free!) is just a useful side effect.

 

Slightly OT (this was a more generic UI question) but it has struck me that Cham Sys may have a problem. They make a great console and market it by providing a powerful and cheap way for young users to control their lighting gear. I know that thousands of people all over the world are finding the Cham Sys through word of mouth/ forums etc. Hell I'm even writing tutorials on it and people contact me all the time asking about using it with the cheap interfaces. Woot - holy free marketing, Batman.

 

But, what happens when the easily accessible version has a less than optimal interface? I like the MagicQ and I can use MagicQ PC as quick as you like, but the very first time I saw that desk it was real. And I had been using Hogs. And I had Chris Kennedy giving me the guided tour.

 

What if a seemingly great market penetration tactic turned out to be actually turning people off your product? It's no good saying "You'll grow to love it" or " Of course, the real thing is actually brilliant". They're already a lost customer.

 

Just a thought.

 

Back to the topic.....

[Wol]

There are so many stories of the "first time I used MQ on a PC and hated it" that I've heard over the years, and have to admit that I'm one as well. Hated the interface to start with cos I was using it on a PC and hadn't really used that style of desk before ( only used more command line style things which no real support for anything except dimmers). I personally feel that one of the main problems is a real lack in a decent manual. I don't know other peoples' opinions on this , but I've always found problems in trying to locate stuff in the manual for what I want to do, and also a distinct lack in a well written basic intro guide (official one at least that could be found on their website)

 

I admit that the first time I used it was when someone else was playing about with it, and it took me absolutely ages to find in the manual how to rename a cue to something that wasnt "CS#". Put me off it instantly from a fairly minimal little thing like that. Now I know that its the "set" button and its the bottom left key on the block of 8 above the numpad (a few months of keycapping the things and you learn where the buttons are!). Once I'd actually properly sat down and started to use the desk properly in a show environment, actually learning how to do things it started to make a lot more sense, and it just required me to not be so stubborn as to expect to understand how the thing worked from the word Go. Now I really like the style of the desk and how it works.

 

Would be interested to know how many other people have had this sort of "started off on the PC version didn't like it, but now I've used it on a desk, it's really good" experience.

 

My 2p anyway :)

[karl]

Would be interested to know how many other people have had this sort of "started off on the PC version didn't like it, but now I've used it on a desk, it's really good" experience.

To my way of thinking if you have to 'learn to love' something like this it means the UI is poor. With a good UI you should be able to be up and running from day one, you may find shortcuts and tweaks as you go along.

 

As I mentioned before a big part of good UI design is to follow standards. I have used a show control system which runs on Windows but follows none of the Windows standards. It also has buttons with such meaningful captions as 'Q', 'M', etc. I found it an absolute pain and now avoid it like the plague.

[Dmills]

To my way of thinking if you have to 'learn to love' something like this it means the UI is poor. With a good UI you should be able to be up and running from day one, you may find shortcuts and tweaks as you go along.

 

I am not really sure I agree.

 

A good UI for casual use is a very different animal to a good UI once you get seriously experienced with it.

 

A lighting desk is something you are going to be using day in day out in some fairly seriously stressed situations, it is FAR more important that the interface has some real depth to it so that things like macros are adequately expressive then that it be immediately obvious how to operate it for a new user, after all you only have to learn the thing once!

 

I like physical surfaces and tactile feedback, and I like systems that provide an almost Turing complete macro language (Preferably one that allows small adhock macros (things like : for (c=104; c <129; c+=2){c@+50}:) to be entered directly at the command line.

 

But then I like Vi as a text editor!

 

Regards, Dan.

[karl]

A good UI for casual use is a very different animal to a good UI once you get seriously experienced with it.

A good UI caters for both!

 

A lighting desk is something you are going to be using day in day out...

Not necessarily, I flit around between venues. Luckily, to date, they all use Strand desks of one flavour or another so although key layout is different the syntax is the same. As the existing desks get retired I'm likely to find my self having to switch between UIs (possibly only using some for a few days each year) - I'm not looking forward to that!

 

But then I like Vi as a text editor!

VI is the work of the devil! And you are obviously a masochist! :)

[Dmills]

VI is the work of the devil! And you are obviously a masochist! :)

 

Speaks a man who obviously thinks <Control><Alt><Meta><Shift>-emacs-fooify-buffer is an intuitive command! :huh:

 

Actually, I don't think ANYONE has managed a UI that actually manages to work well for both casual users and serious ones, GUIs tend to lack the expressiveness needed, and command line lacks the discover-ability.

 

Possibly the best model is actually what a lot of the cad systems do, have the GUI enter commands into the command line edit buffer. It buys you command line discoverability, gui newbie friendliness and you can still have the full expressive power of a proper command interpreter.

 

Regards, Dan.

[bjkered]

Just My 0.02p worth

 

Just come in from 3 Hours learning a Pearl Desk ( for the first time in my Life) 3 Hours to just about get the Patch right ( had to learn Cache for Fixtures learn how to fix mistakes and fight a training manual, Board Lay out and as you can guess for a new BOARD I can not see what all the fuss about how great AVO boards are at this minute in time. This is not an AVO knock just appropriate timing.

 

Any way, what it does say to me is, it is all about learning and patience. I love using Software to Program with Mouse and screens etc. However I do like to drive a show with Buttons and Faders when Live.

 

There is NO right Interface as we are all different and how we work is different. I now notice the sound boys are heading to lots of new interfaces now, they are moving to Digital with S/W and all the sound boards look different fundamentally and people will take longer to learn. I suspect we will soon see in the sound forum the inevitable " Which Board is Best Topic" OH YAWN

 

It is all about getting into the mind of the people who design the boards and what is intuitive to one person is not to another. Let me give you an example. Why do AVO's have a Select/SWOT button and the manual to "patch" always refers to SWOP and NOT Select. I have NOT SWOPPED any thing, but spent all night selecting Fixtures and Dimmers but yet I am told to press the SWOP button ( Dhoooo). Another initial weird area, some of the menus use "more" as a Softkey to get to their functions but then I discoverd the "Next window" key which works on some screens WHY do we have two different ways.

 

This is all about Learning and individuals. I am not picking on AVO it is just that this topic cropped up at a the same time as I got a new desk to learn ( yes I do plan on doing a formal training session at AVO but like to get to understand as much as possible before )

 

I do wonder on what I call Hardware boards ( AVO Zero etc) when they are going to make the the User interfaces closer to PC's Screens mouse etc seem to be an add ON and not part of the Programming world and hence part the BOARD. It is Nice to go Off Line and I know that Zero and AVO and others offer Simulators. I will have to Learn the AVO one but on first Pass it it looks like I still have to LEARN the BOARD.

 

With Control surfaces we learn S/w and PC's, yet all applications on Windows PC try to use the same style of interface and commands across applications so that people learn new applications quickly and hence happy to buy a new product as the suppliers know if people are up and running quickly with a software product they are more likely to get positive user friendliness reviews.

 

There will be no common interface as Maufactures try to differenitate to get sales but with what is a predominately sloftware controll we are open to loads of differentent designs.

 

A bit of a ramble this but back to my Whiskey ( SPELT correctly by the IRISH, it is the Scottish who can not spell whisky)

 

 

 

Thanks

[Judge]

Well, like it or not we are moving away from the old model of lighting desks where you have a handle for every channel to a world where there are just too many possible fixtures/channels to be selected like this. And this has resulted in revolution rather than evolution. Evolution has taken the old pin matrix Avo 84 desks of old and turned them into Pearls and Diamonds. In doing so they have retained some familiarity and once an Avo is patched I can show someone with a bit of nous how to program and operate it within a fairly short time. I grew up with two preset desks, and the desk is intuitive to a large extent - even for young people who have never used a board covered with faders. I think that Titan is probably veering the desks away from their instant usability to some extent, but thats the subject for a different conversation.

Years ago, having invented the perfect desk for running lamps - the Gold - Celco decided to ditch everything - including huge loyal user-base - with what they thought was revolution - and came up with the Aviator. Hundreds of people threw up their hands and headed off to Park Royal where most of them stayed.

Strand went and did their own thing and invented a series of boards that seemed to be designed by technicians rather than lighting designers. Likewise ETC and Compulite. I have just finished a theatre tour using house kit and different desks evey time - and nowhere did I find any house techs that were completely familiar with their boards - or happy with them either.

Out of all the beasts that I used, strangly enough I liked the Strand 520i the best - because you could plot a sub easily - and because it had the best control surface. This is a big factor and goes a long way to your initial like or dislike of a board. If it feels good to sit behind and operate then you are more likely to want to master it rather than deciding that it's pants.

Celco made the Gamma boards, which were brilliant technically, but looked and felt as if they had been designed by the Early Learning Centre - and many people preferred to use an Avo QM500 instead - much harder to program, but felt like driving a Bentley rather than a Fiat.

So yes, I am finding the UI of desks a bit bewildering. I believe that it is possible to address the complexity of muti--channel fixtures in a modern desk that seems simple to use - but nobody has actually done it yet in a way that suits the majority of people. You are never going to please everyone - Strand never did but they did invent a standard to some extent - but they could not deal with the crossover market. You used to have theatre people and music people, and they were different. Now the boundaries are blurring and manufacturers are trying to build desks that work with all kinds of people from very different backgrounds and methods of operation. And thats going to be much trickier proposition than trying to build the perfect R&R board, or perfect theatre board.

Get the control surface right and get the logic right.

Its interesting to see sound engineers in teh same kind of boat though isn't it? All the board manufacturers claiming that their desk is the easiest/best sounding.

Over and out...I'm rambling.

[mumbles]

As one of the students in question I think it's probably about time I weighed in with my thoughts.

 

For starters a bit of background; the event was the Bath Uni Summer Ball, where I was lighting the mainstage in the 2000 capacity hall. We had a medium-ish sized rig on stage (not large by professional standards, but big in terms of the normal events the society undertakes), and then additionally a whole load of Anolis LEDs for the bar area. The main desk was an inhouse Pearl 2004.

 

I had a couple of weeks beforehand been given a demo of the Vista by AC, playing with the S1 control surface, and had subsequently installed the software and continued to play. This demo wasn't my first experience of the Vista, but was of the small controll surfaces. Before this demo I had been vaguely looking into purchasing a desk (personally, not related to the University), aiming at the 2008, or possibly a secondhand 2004. Following the demo on the Vista I started thinking about other options instead of an Avo. Soon after I was chatting to people at work, including Rob, who recommended the MagicQ, and we were able to organise a demo of the system with the MaxiWing from Enlightened Lighting. At this point I had no experience whatsoever of the MagicQ range, other than hearing positive responses from almost everyone I spoke to.

 

At the event, once the rig was up and focussed, we plotted the Pearl overnight, completely ignoring the MagicQ due to the time. The following day, while still adding a few bits to the Pearl, we got the MagicQ all set up, and so as not to interrupt the mainstage just connected it to bar lighting thinking we could set up a few color chases very quickly and then move it onto the mainstage for a proper play. After solving the initial air gap fault *looks little bit sheepish* we got the manual out, had a read and made a start.

 

Now, right the way through we had problems, from the entry style for patching, to selecting fixtures, down to getting pissed off that the encoder wheels seemed to go the wrong way on the wing. Having been playing around with the Vista and patched, and plotted a lot in an afternoon just because we were bored, we/I just got the gut instinct that everything was more complicated than it needed to have been due simply to the UI. Now I have always preferred a proper desk to a PC, and regularly use the Avo consoles, Z88 frog range, Congo, though behind a Pearl is where I spend most of my time. I have never played with the Hog desks so don't have that experience to help me, but everything seemed to be made harder, with jumping between menu screens and odd style of input in a way that Jands have completely avoided. I know that the Vista isn't the only desk commented on by others, but for the demo, this is what it was trying to live up to...

 

I will hold my hands up and say I was tired at this point, and if I'd given it a greater oppurtunity this topic may have never arisen. I do intend to give it another go, but the moment, I'm sticking to my gut instinct and looking to purchase an I3.

 

For reference, when we gave up on the MagicQ, we had no space left on the rolacue to add the Bar LX onto the Pearl and so the disasterpiece (our only remaining desk as others were dotted round campus) was dragged out, and to its credit was up, running, and had rainbow and dimmer chases going within a half hour.

 

HTH

 

M

[Cormac]

Here is a new control surface I used last week for the first time,

http://www.midiator.eu/page.php?1

 

Basically it's a small touchscreen that can talk to most consoles that can read MSC.The major plus of this interface is that it is bi-directional so if I play a chase on an AVO/Hog/MA or whatever console and decide I like that look I just record that look to a touchscreen pallette and equally I can program a look on my console and record it as a pallette.

I usually have little interest in external control surfaces but this one is really miles ahead of anything I've seen,you can drag jpegs/thumbnails into the screen so if you wanted to run media server clips you can.

Possibilitys are endless really.

 

I have no affiliation with this product and used it briefly but I thought it was very clever and relevant to this post,

 

Best C

[HobitLight]

There's now an article on OSL. Link.

[smalljoshua]

With a link back here too.

 

Josh

[Daveman]

My thoughts on MagicQ as a student. Having got deeper into the system and the way in which it operates, I quite like it. However, what initially put me off was purely the look of the program. I've never used a real MagicQ desk, and I'm sure the way the interface looks wouldn't seem so strange in it's proper environment. But the way the interface on the PC and Mac versions looks (especially compared to every other current piece of software), is nasty. It's difficult to operate as well, no tooltips, no mouse scrolling. Obviously it's not worth ChamSys putting loads of development into their software versions to make it look nice. But the pure difficulty of operating the program from an interface points of view makes something which is difficult to learn in the first place even more difficult, if you're a novice to lighting consoles.

 

Personally, out of the few desks I've used, my favourite has been the ETC express 250. Not so great for moving lights, but in the theatre where I work we don't have any and rarely use them. Whatsmore I've been able to teach people who know nothing about any aspect of lighting how to program and operate it in less than 10 minutes.