I’m working with the Audacity dev team on a redesign of the UI/UX. More on this soon!
Or you get ancient looking Ui
Or you get platform spesific stuff!
Actually Java applications are kinda reasonable compromise
As are .NET applications. Yeah, most .NET desktop apps in the wild are technically chock full of Windowsisms, I've found that said apps more often than not Just Work(TM) on e.g. Linux w/ Mono, and alternative toolkits like Avalonia help further.
I'm hoping this is something that improved in 3.0.0, because using Audacity is becoming increasingly impractical. I was just trying to listen to 10 tracks one by one yesterday and even just muting/soloing a track would take about a second; it was horrible. Shrinking the window helps, but it's silly to have a tiny window and scroll around when you have a 4K display.
I kind of suspect this to be a windowing toolkit issue, and originally I thought it was macOS-specific (since I first noticed when I tried to recommend it to friends who use that), but ever since I moved to a 4K screen on Linux I noticed it's bad here too...
The Mac story is here: https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=111105
The workaround is, well, not using HiDPI mode which is silly. But Audacity doesn't even seem to support HiDPI mode on Linux properly to begin with (the entire UI is small), so that's not it per se... I guess wxGTK just struggles when it has to draw 4x as many pixels?
Apparently it's bad on Windows too: https://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?t=111857
This is because the state machine that drives the draw context is synchronous. Every line, pixels (or anything, really) takes some CPU cycles.
Newer toolkits (QtQuick2, GTK4, Skia-based-ones) are hardware accelerated. They are slower of standard DPI, but much faster on HiDPI.
So, yes, they cannot be as snappy on HiDPI, the number of pixel gets bottlenecked by the single thread performance of the CPU. Those barely grow year-over-year, while the number of pixel went up a cliff overnight.
I've noticed that the Audacity issue seems proportional to the number of tracks (not how much of the screen they take up) and improves when I zoom in a lot (to the sample level), which tells me this isn't a simple pixel pushing problem but rather something more profound in Audacity. There is obviously something horribly inefficient about how waveforms are being drawn at lower zoom levels.
For comparison, I can run full-screen Ardour with an order of magnitude more tracks and complexity than Audacity and it still performs much better, even if it isn't perfectly smooth.
> which tells me this isn't a simple pixel pushing problem but rather something more profound in Audacity.
That's probably because of the cursor animation (when you play). Audacity has to redraw the entire track widget each time the needle moves unless they implement special double buffering + special damage area slices. By default, Qt/GTK/wx are too dumb to understand layers properly. They will redraw the entire rectangle if you try to stack things with any transparency or non-rectangle clips. Even with proper double buffering, combining both frame buffers is still done on the CPU. That's 2x4x{width}x{height}x{fps} bytes up load to the GPU per second. for a 4k ARGB8888 video frame @ 60fps, that's like 4GB/s of raw transfer if you rasterize each frames in the CPU.
(disclaimer: former KDE dev)
edit: If you run KWin, you can enable the redraw compositor plugin and see for yourself which area of the window are repainted.
Yes, it's poor UI.
It's a potential project killer, but it can be done. The trick is to wrap all your objects in QObject classes. You keep the old UI code as-is as long as possible.
The first Jedi mind trick is to reverse the event loop. Qt supports GLib2 loops, but only as long as they are created by Qt. So you create a dummy QCoreApplication, start the event loop. Then you coerce GTK into using the glib event loop Qt created.
After that, you populate your QObjects I mentionned above. The `Q_PROPERTY` stuff is the important part. It *has* to be fully implemented for QML to ever work. For Qt5, you need to use Qt containers. This means porting your lists and other C++ types (or glib types) to Qt. For Qt6, I think you can get away with some of that, but not Qt5.
Then, make all the signals work. It is important that all properties have signals. The signals must be reliable. QML heavily relies on events for literally everything. Without events, your UX gets out of sync and crash.
The next part is models. Turn all list with selections to models. Don't try to render stuff using for-loops in QML, this is a terrible idea and will explode in your face. Qt Models are annoying to write (and get repetitive very fast), but reliable list models really greatly simplify the QML code.
When you have all those QObject to reflect your current codebase, you make a companion app. This is a small window (or LAN/Network smartphone UI using QtRemoteObjects).
Now you are ready for the UI. Add little features, one by one. Don't try to do everything at once. Again, as long as you can, keep the wx/GTK window alive and fully functional. Your app will look wierd with 1 wx window and 1 QtQuick window. However, having the fully functional old UI let you press buttons there and see the results being updated in QML. That let you polish/debug your signal/q_property code step by step.
Once you are "done" with your port, strip the UI code from the old codebase. Then refactor/clean the logic and turn it into a library. Then start merging your QObject shims and logic classes into a single class.
If you get there, congradulation, your port is complete. Time to annoy your users with a bunch of changes.
With Qt 4/5, there is an environment variable, to play with. It sill runs like crap and is now deprecated.
edit: Of course, GTK4 have "real" backends for both Vulkan and OpenGL. They implement scene graphs like QtQuick rather than building a big bitmap like GTK2, GTK3 and QtWidgets.
On KDE HiDPI, the audio input/output device selector positions the dropdown boxes according to 100% scaling, but they're sized according to 125% scaling, so they overlap!
I'm super interested in the UI design of really complex applications (like Audacity, or Photoshop, etc.). I would adore some kind of writeup on y'all's design process whenever you towards the end!
(Obviously a big ask for someone already doing a bunch of work for free, pls feel free to ignore me; just saying that I'd be interested :D)
Having actually used Audacity and Photoshop, I'd love to learn a bit more about how those design decisions were made.
The only thing I think I can remember clearly however was the question about the biggest regret which I think was one particular core datastructure that was an array but which they later wished they had used a linked list for instead.
Designing the Win95: https://socket3.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/designing-windows-9...
Also the final design guides: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/courses/ICS104/course-notes/M...
A (really old) book: https://www.amazon.com/About-Face-Essentials-Interaction-Des...
Another book: https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Interfaces-Patterns-Effecti...
Oddly enough these are all ancient. There hasn't been much innovation in that space though. (apart from High Dpi and Dark Mode)
Blender recently did a redesign of their UI, they have lot's of discussions about their rationale.
Computers used to show light characters on a dark background. 8-bit platforms often defaulted to white text on a dark-blue background, which until just a few years ago was still available in Word as a checkbox option.
Then the "desktop publishing" craze came along, and brought the analogy of a computer screen to a piece of paper. But this inverse (black text on a white background) scheme ignored the fact that paper doesn't EMIT light. Using these systems was akin to reading the label on the surface of a lit light bulb all day.
But for two decades, Windows let you set up a system-wide color scheme whose colors would be inherited by (nearly) all applications. It was great; you could (and I did, in the early '90s) replace the dumb inverse default color scheme with a "charcoal" scheme... essentially exactly what most "dark modes" are today.
I think Unix GUIs allowed you to set up color schemes too, leaving only the vaunted Mac GUI as the hard-coded,glaring eyeball-strainer of the era.
But now that people are finally realizing that inverse color schemes suck, what did Microsoft do? REMOVE the color-scheme editor from Windows. So now we're being dribbled out "dark mode" one OS, Web page, and application at a time. And it's still hard-coded.
That's not innovation. It's pathetic.
>paper doesn't EMIT light
Your retina doesn't care if the photons it receives are emitted (as with CRTs) or reflected (as with paper). If you feel like you're staring into a lightbulb, your monitor's brightness is set too high. Set it properly, and, in a well lit environment, your monitor's white should match that of the wall behind it, or that of a piece of paper on your desk.
It's still called an export, but it's basically doing exactly what you're asking for.
It's because the format you want (regardless of it being the same format you started with) can't store quite as much metadata about your changes as the app's native format.
Maybe a custom config profile that is very easy to tune, import and export would allow redesign to get radical without compromising old users