SOUND ON SOUND

[Folderol]

My synth of choice has the ability to save bits of the sound generator pseudo-code to file, describing them as 'Presets'. This really isn't very intuitive and is easily confused with actual presets, such as different types of Reverb, Echo etc. Therefore I'm looking for an alternate name.

These bits cover a wide range, and can be can be anything from one particular group of settings for an oscillator you especially like, a modified formant filter, a multi-point envelope, or a set of subsynth filters etc.

Can anyone think of a useful, descriptive word that would cover all of these (and a few more)?

[Hugh Robjohns]

Elements?

[Wonks]

Naughty?

[desmond]

I quite like "macros" for things like envelopes - so you could load macros for "Piano", "Organ", "Pluck", "Strings" etc, to quickly set envelopes to some starting condition.

So if it's just parameter/settings/presets, you could go in that direction - but people do understand "presets"/"settings" etc, so you could just call them as such... ie the ocillator has a Settings or Presets menu/button to call up settings or presets of parameters just for that block etc...

[Watchmaker]

"Configs"

[Folderol]

The issue I have with 'Presets' is that it suggests things that are fixed but selectable (as our effects presets are). Macros sounds much better, as that is a fairly correct description of what they are - certainly an experienced spreadsheet user would 'get' it instantly.

[BJG145]

Pinkies

[Folderol]

Pinkies

Oh! Errr, quite :?

[Dave B]

Modules

[blinddrew]

templates? set ups?
When I read your description Watchmaker's suggestion of configs is what comes to mind.

[Eddy Deegan]

Mapping this to the areas I work in, this looks to me like metadata. The definition would be something along the lines of "information that is not inherently part of the source data, but which is applied to (or associated with) it in order to obtain the desired result"

I'd term your pseudo-code outputs as "metas" (singular: "meta") in that case.

In user terms: "Metasets", "Metapresets", "Metaprofiles" or "Metaconfigs"?

In our business, terminology is important. We work in an arena within which there are many understood terms and a number of subjectively interpreted terms. Metadata is not fully understood by everyone but they all seem to have an instinctive understanding that metadata is somehow related to 'real' data even if they don't get exactly why.

[Martin Walker]

+1 for Macros

[Folderol]

Some more good ideas here. Modules was one I'd thought of myself. I still think Macros is the best so far, but probably not so good for newbies.

One of the things I've found when looking on many on-line groups is that new users struggle with a lot of these terms through unfamiliarity - and it's so difficult to remember what it was like when we were new.

These are my main focus. After all, the future of any project is dependent on new people coming along. This means trying to find a balance of terms that are easy to grasp, yet don't sound 'twee' or downright wrong to the regular experienced folk - it's not easy :tongue:

[desmond]

new users struggle with a lot of these terms through unfamiliarity - and it's so difficult to remember what it was like when we were new.

I get that, but it's frustrating when these days no one *ever* consults a manual.

There's this perception of "I should be able to figure this out myself" (whatever the user experience level) and a big resistance to even opening the manual (for many reasons).

A prospective user thus never learns basic concepts that are key to using a complex piece of gear, and forever expects someone else to tell them what to do with it, or how to do something, or where a certain feature is.

If you are going to have extensive features, then there is a familiarity and learning curve. By all means bear this in mind, and design so the interface as as "obvious" as possible (and you are right, when we are too close to a product, it's difficult to see how a new or inexperienced user reacts to it) but I do get a bit annoyed when new users on internet forums claim a complicated and deep bit of software is "unintuitive" because they refuse to even engage in any kind of learning process about it...

If you're really worried about it, then you can try to strip away the terminology altogether as much as you can. So on your envelope page, you just have eg "Load" and "Save" buttons, or a "File" menu or whatever makes the most sense. The user can then see on the envelope page, you can as a sub-feature load and save, presumably, envelope shapes. Your manual then just goes "You can save and load different envelope settings using these buttons" or whatever...

[BJG145]

If you want something that sounds standard, technical, and easily grasped, I'd also go with "configs". (I associate "macros" more with automated tasks, and this sounds more like something that governs behaviour than performs an action.)