I think I have not done the question correctly, the question was more like, given my answer, would you
think that it has no relation with what was exposed? (if you have time, this is not important, so you can ignore this completely)
This has nothing to do with that. Those criticisms were early on in the discussion… In fact, many of the modifier workflows now have become easier, not harder because of the changes.
Thank you for your support. If you agree that Blender should establish User Experience as a core value, then do you also agree that the Blender team should embed the UX process as a prioritized and resourced element for the product design?
So, just to be clear and not confusing, I’m defining UX design, for the purpose of this thread, to be understanding the current user experience and defining the pain points (for new and existing users alike), and suggesting alternatives which then can be tested and evaluated. Typically, much of this is done before final User Interface is settled.
And I define User Interface, for the purposes of this thread, to be the implementation of an agreed upon user experience using available user interface constructs like panels, buttons, icons, colors, etc…
To be clear, I am not suggesting HOW this is to be done, only that it SHOULD be done.
If it is decided it should be done, then the next step is the HOW– what are the resources? Where is the funding? Who are the volunteers? What is the definition of success? Do we wish to work on a customer journey to help us better understand our product?
All of these questions can be answered after we decide whether or not it is a worthwhile endeavor to prioritize UX for Blender.
If this concept of UX as a core value in Blender has already been discussed, and either dismissed or prioritized, it would be enlightening and useful for me to review the discussion-- if someone could point it out.
3 Likes
Yes, that would be a very good regardless if we agree or not whether UX should be a core value of Blender.
That in which you insist on suspending added features and prioritizing the UX experience generates a doubt about what you are requesting. Should the developers in charge of: Cycles, Eevee, Nodes and Physics simulations, etc. be fired, so they can hire specialists in UX things? Because I’m not sure there are resources to give them sabbaticals until the UX thing pleases every Blender user.
1 Like
Some posts were removed that were leaning too much toward personal discord. Please keep the discussion respectful and relevant, and please try not to take things personal. Opinions differ, and subjects like these usually trigger expressions of personal preference, which can lead to heated discussions.
I’ll keep an eye on the thread. If it gets too heated I may have to pause or close it, but I don’t think that’s necessary at this stage.
Thanks for understanding.
1 Like
It’s not a “YOUR SOFTWARE SUCKS” message, that just may be your misinterpretation of it. It’s just intended to disprove the fallacious misconception that difficulty of learning curve and use is always rewarded in some way, be it with the efficiency of workflow or output quality.
Your reply pretty much sums up the problem with this approach. It’s along the lines of “We know there are better ways to do things, but we’re gonna ignore them anyways. If you want something better, go use better alternatives.”
I am proponent of exact opposite approach, to strive for improvement in all areas, including UX, at all costs.
1 Like
Please read my message and precisely point out which part of it is personal. I am failing to spot any single sentence that would be aimed at Sybren personally, instead of the topic of the conversation.
Please try to cool down this type of tone a little, thanks.
By the way, I did not delete any of your posts.
Ok, I’ve edited the message, although this seems more of an issue with subjective sensitivity to formulation of a language rather than objective interpretation of if the conversation is going ad hominem or not.
I am aware.
Thanks. I’m trying to be as objective as I can here. My message was addressed to every participant of this discussion.
4 Likes
Yes, sure, no problem. I was referring specifically to the part of my text you’ve quoted 
Anyway, I am happy the original version is still in the quote so everyone can make their own picture if it was too harsh or not. I am gonna take a break now so we don’t pollute this with offtopic any more.
The problem with dissecting each others’ posts bit by bit and telling people why they are presumably wrong in the other’s opinion is that it will not change anyone’s mind. If anything people will most likely even do the oposite and double down on their own opinion.
There’s a very interesting book about it by neuro scientist Tali Sharot (“The influential mind” - I’d highly recommend it).
Point being - when we attack each other then this thread will fall. Nobody wins in personal attacks - even if they think that it’s not even personal. Dissecting other people’s posts bit by bit by telling them why each thing they say is wrong won’t do anyone any good.
It’s counterproductive to the cause and it will mostly only drive people away who actually want a constructive discussion. Flat out telling people that they are wrong without trying to see their side is counterproductive.
And BTW - this is not directed towards anyone in particular, here. It’s a general statement trying to not derail a heated discussion into personal attacks. Especially on topics where people are very involved this happens way too easy.
Remember that most users have their own idea about what the program they are using is and should be. That idea can vary from user to user and depending on the things they actually want to achieve with it. And just because this image may differ from another person’s demands doesn’t make the other person’s point invalid. If anything it’s even more of a reason to find common ground in how to find the best usability for everybody.
And it is absolutely possible to improve that common ground for everybody. And it would be easier if it was structured better.
Yeah - 3D can be difficult. And we should absolutely make it a core value to not make 3D even more difficult on top. We can’t change how the 3D world works in general. We can do everything in our power to make Blender become the thing that empowers everybody. Powerusers, Intermediates, Hobbyists and People new to 3D alike. It is possible and it is a good thing. And trying to put yourself into someone else’s shoes is very helpful for this cause.
2 Likes
I said what I wanted to say, which included that if something is difficult, that’s only okay IF it has a big reward as well. I also know that there are many discussions between developers and artists about how to simplify things in Blender, how to make sure workflows are simpler, smoother, friendlier. In my very first post here I already agreed that UX is important. If that’s not enough for you, so be it.
That is not the way to get a Blender developer to listen to you. For me it’s not nice to be in this thread, as I feel attacked and forced to defend myself. I don’t want to argue and defend anything, I just want to talk with people who actually help raise Blender to a new level.
7 Likes
Well, it’s a bit difficult to have any degree of meaningful conversation if just mention of there being examples of things that can be better, or mention that you may have misinterpreted a point of a message/post feels like an attack to you.
GIven that you are the part of official Blender development team, then you are one of those who are supposed to be raising Blender to a new level. So you can imagine it’s a bit demotivating to hear a “Go use other software” kind of response when one mentions areas of possible improvement.
@chippwalters
Why do you think that UX isn’t already a priority? When you browse developer.blender.org, you can see that pretty much every new feature has it’s own design document that has to be approved. The UI team is being involved constantly. I don’t really see how UX is not a priority right now.
And I also don’t understand the split you make between features on one side and UX on the other. There is no worse User Experience than something not being possible, because the program is lacking the functionality.
Features that are being developed right now like the Boolean rework or the Particle Nodes are a fundamental improvement in UX, because they’ll make work easier and more predictable.
I just don’t really see a massive problem
5 Likes
You make a good point. And I suppose my thinking goes something along the lines of this:
If Blender were to define itself as only an elite professional 3D toolset, then I would certainly have less problems with the current user experience. For instance, a 747 cockpit control panel isn’t designed to be used by everyone-- and it’s single most important UX is access to the many rich and necessary functions to fly a plane. Blender may be defined as the same if it wishes to. If so, this discussion is not necessary-- the software is targeted at elite professionals and the learning curve is what it is.
I don’t think I’m being presumptive in noticing many, if not most open source programs are managed by elite technologists, who prefer functionality over user experience. This is not meant to be a dig on Blender, or WordPress, or GIMP, for without the developers, there could never be the software-- at all.
Still, as we move towards “everything nodes,” we continue to build the walls of
Castle Blender higher and higher, and add more and more levels of moats to protect it-- which is fine for those who use Blender 8 hours a day, 8 days a week. The more features that are added, the more accomplished and technical must be the few who are allowed to enter our kingdom.
I read where there is a push to add full NURBS modeling to Blender. I use NURBS solid modelers-- and it’s a totally different workflow. How do we shoehorn that in? And what if we want to add all of Substance Painter and Designer capabilities? And add that to a full set of After Effects competitive tools? And, of course, let’s not forget Houdini and it’s promise of everything nodes. And we still have a bit of a ways to go to overtake ZBrush.
At some point, Blender becomes a tool which can only be used by a very small minority of the people-- many of them probably here in this forum.
Still, isn’t the promise of Blender to be a free tool for everyone? Not just the experts who work in game and vfx studios? Is it only the elites we really care about having access to free software? What about those just starting, who have no access to the thousands of dollars it takes to begin with the “easier-to-use” programs? Is Blender not for them?
By continually adding feature after feature without some sort of over-arching user experience doctrine-- Blender will once again become relegated to that “difficult to use open source 3D program.”
NOTE: IMO Blender 2.8 “reset” that notion and created the opinion Blender was now easier to use. Kudos to the development team for that!
Also, a bunch of tutorials isn’t the answer, either-- or more forums where questions can be asked and answered. They all surely help, but don’t take the place of a great on-boarding experience.
If nothing is done, Blender will be passed by quickly by more commercial offerings which understand the value of embracing new users with easy to understand interfaces and learning curves. That is currently Blender’s Achilles Heel-- and the place Autodesk, C4D and others will certainly take sharp aim at.
Yes, those are wonderful additions. The work Howard and others are doing are most valuable, and in some cases don’t affect the UX at all-- or marginally at best.
As I look at the list of those in charge of marching us torward the future, I would sure like to see someone in a leadership position who is thinking of these things.
(BTW, I should also mention I have worked with developers who have a magnificent sense for UX and even UI. And conversely I’ve worked with UX designers who do a great job proselytizing the religion of UX, but have little to no creative or valuable contributions. So, what I’m trying to say is I’m not attacking the Blender developers. I just would like a full-time UX strategy person to be involved.)
I’ll answer the question which has been asked and will be asked again, "Are we to forgo adding functions to Blender just so kids in school can be able to use it?"
My answer is “maybe” and “it depends.” If like the example I mention above about embedding a NURBS solids modeler kernel within Blender-- then I would say don’t do it until there’s a clear place and understanding of how the user will interact with it with respect of current expectations.
While I’m sure everything nodes will continue to give us unheard of new functions, the fact is the vast majority of Blender users currently don’t know how to use the existing shader node editor very well. Adding yet more confusing nodes sounds great for those doing even fancier effects, but moves us further away from layman being able to use it.
So, maybe there’s another easier to use version which accomplishes some of the same stuff, but uses a more friendly interface. Unity’s material editor comes to mind. It also has a node shader builder, but for basic materials and textures-- it’s quite easy to use.
If you don’t agree with me, then perhaps you can agree with me these things can be tested.
Please, if you respond, don’t attack me personally. As @sybren says:
6 Likes
I think that’s touching the core of this thread.
I’d like to add my purely personal, humble opinion. I jumped on the Blender bandwagon in 2012, back when version 2.5 had just overhauled the UI, and with that also the UX changed, but not so much, it was mainly the UI that had been refreshed with clearer layouts.
Before 2.5, Blender really was a techie toy, so to speak. The UI was slightly unorganized and Blender in general wasn’t very accessible. I had been working with 3D editors ranging from Sculpt 3D on the Amiga to 3ds Max, and it was only after 2.5 was released that I felt attracted to make the transition from Max.
Version 2.8 made Blender even more accessible, and it also gave Blender a boost in terms of popularity and funding, allowing Ton to hire a lot more full-time developers. While this is generally speaking a good thing, I also have the impression that it’s getting hard to retain fine control over how Blender is rapidly evolving. The most striking example of this is also the most exciting area of development in Blender as far as I’m concerned: Sculpt Mode. Sculpt Mode is revolutionizing Blender’s sculpting capacities, but at the expense of clarity. Function after function, tool after tool is added in a rapid pace, as if some kind of speed contest is going on. Next to decreasing UI and UX clarity, it also causes what I call ‘feature fatigue’. To keep up with Blender’s unequalled development speed, you need to constantly keep studying what has changed, including changed shortcuts you’re used to. To name just one example out of many, Shift + R has always been Repeat last action, and suddenly it has become the shortcut for changing Voxel Remesh resolution. Such frequent changes are confusing, and sometimes frustrating.
Concluding, I agree with @chippwalters that a fundamental UI / UX philosophy is needed to establish a certain constant, allowing both beginners and seasoned users to easily adopt to new tools and features. I also think Blender development will thrive when a UI / UX manager / director will be in charge of all interface changes, watching whether the developers follow the rules, and judging whether a new tool or function really adds to the UX.
I’m also a ZBrush user, and what I really like about ZBrush is that the fundamental design works like an ecosystem. Every new tool works seamlessly with all tools that are already present, and nothing which users are accustomed to is suddenly changed or removed. Also, the amount of changes per year is limited and very clear. I wouldn’t want Blender development to slow down significantly, but making it explode with a large quantity of tools and functions in an increasingly cluttered UI does not necessarily equal progress.
Just my two cents. 
6 Likes
Sorry to drag you into the hornet’s nest here, but I think the point of this thread is that “just talk” worked when Blender was a small community effort, but now that you are bigger and pretty well funded, it’s perhaps time for some more structure…
Hmm… however… writing this… I realize… when organisations grow too big and structured, that’s also when they become boring and tedious to work with…
A dilemma.
1 Like