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
Anyway ZBrush is not the best example for an user friendly Ui/UX that is being discussed here. One of the most difficult and unintuitive environments I have ever seen. Anyway, ZBrush users seem very happy with it, I suppose due to good performance and due to its unique and impressive “features”.
ZBrush is unconventional, but once you study it and work with it, you discover that everything is working in harmony, and creating becomes a process that doesn’t need much thought.
We could say the same for Blender
1 Like
Sure, but to name a difference: ZBrush is very focused on UX. For example, masking, inverting a mask, clearing a mask, clipping, slicing, cutting, polygrouping, etcetera are all performed with a combination of Control, Shift and Alt. Once you know that, you can work very fast, in stead of opening rollouts and searching for checkboxes in subsections and drop-down menus all the time.
Also, the ZBrush UI is completely customizable. That would help Blender users a lot as well.
So yeah - this is biased becasue I am also one of those people who likes working in ZBrush despite how weird it is initially:
ZBRush does one thing very, very right: after a rather steep learning curve initially it behaves very consistent in how it works. New features rarely need much learning after the initial hurdles. At least for me.
It’s okay to learn program weirdness. That’s what sets programs apart. But at least you need to be able to expect this weirdness to be the same throughout the whole program, after learning it for the first time. For example every function and tool in ZBrush is accessible through the menus in the taskbar. Every single one. If something is located anywhere in the UI you can be sure it’s a mirror from one of the toolshelves. And You also know that you can open that exact toolshelf by Alt-Clicking on any icon in the UI. You can discover the weirdest things that way, sometimes. It also has a mostly working self-explanatory way of tooltips with Ctrl-hovering oder any item in the UI. You will get a detailed explanation.
Also Pixologic have a constant Video Output via Streaming and Tutorial videos on how to use features. The way they were intended and also in a way they weren’t. Pixologic has a Twitch channel where they have artists from all around the world show publically how they use ZBrush on various tasks - including 3D prints and such.
All of these videos are also archived. They are free and you can learn a lot from them. In the chat you can also ask questions. Artists gain visibility because it’s Pixologic’s official channel while Pixologic gains not only insight in how their program is used but also publicity.
I proposed that to Ton via Twitter years ago but completely forgot about it afterwards (and started to use Modo for the next years).
Pixologic’s actual dosumentation is pretty sh*t, though. Hard to find and difficult to navigate, IMO. And the dozens of PDFs the program installs are even more difficult to search. They are well written because they all have a practical step by step guide additionally to the regular reference - so you know how ZBrush expects you to use their stuff. But there certainly would be room for improvement, as well.
And other things like the ZModeler … ugh. Terrible! Hate using it and would never actually do polymodeling in ZBrush with it unless I had to. But the way t works I know how I can use it. It’s predictable.
Learn something once so that muscle memory can build up. Then do it the same way. Always. If people can pick up a tool, see the UI and have an immediate idea how things will work then you’re doing it the right way. No matter how weird the UI is, initially.
If the way it’s set up is then also ideally optimized to be fast to use. Nice! Good to go.
Predictability and as fast as possible without sacrificing clarity. Not always doable but finding the most ideal middle ground makes for a super good product.
That might be an overgenerelization. Structure ideally mans focus. Not tediousness.
Headlessness or lack of structure can be just as draining because you don’t know what to focus on and maybe jump tasks all the time. Wouldn’t necessarily see structure as an immediate negative.
5 Likes
I completely second everything you stated, well said.
This is the key for me. “Consistent weirdness” is not a problem to learn. If however everything is a different pattern, like a melting pot of different methods and no overarching methodology or ways of doing things, it will be more and more difficult to learn and master. Especially with changing key bindings and things like that.
Again, I just want to highlight one of the really fantastic things Blender does already, the release notes: https://www.blender.org/download/releases/2-83/
There’s fantastic summaries, there’s great video and image introductions, there’s links to more in-depth info. I just imagine taking this approach, and bringing it to the application itself, testing pain points on users, new and experienced. What are they constantly doing 1000 times that can be fixed by moving a button, what can be clearer with a better explanation, what can be clearer by moving it into it’s own panel etc. etc.
People will say they don’t want to clutter the UI with that, but that’s why you have different people with different focus. You don’t have to clutter the UI, you could have a whole optional part of the UI, that you could turn off when you learn the module/functionality. As an example. I think it would really help the onboarding and even experienced people learning new parts of Blender, to focus on this from now on. I’ll admit I downloaded Blender a few times (pre 2.76) before I actually learned and used it, because it was so overwhelming (even as a Maya/Nuke user).
I know it’s not part of this letter to have concrete examples, but I added them to explain more clearly, hope that’s ok
4 Likes
In this thread I have yet to see some concrete examples of UX failure that aren’t & can’t be handled the way things are.
I don’t think new features or the breadth of Blender is a problem. You only have to know the parts you’re using, really. I’ve been using Blender on and off for a couple of years and only last month used the NLA editor for the first time, because I didn’t need it before.
The last couple of months constantly brought new tools and improvements that make Blender easier to learn and use. It’s really not that it only improves for experts or people who know the program well.
Now obviously Blender isn’t perfect and there are lots of things that could be improved, lots of them are known and have a task, but haven’t been tackled yet. Things take time.
1 Like