What is interesting about the debate is that about half are ok with the new version and about half have more gripes than praise - but there are lots of interesting and relevant observations about how people use Roon in different ways, about what their priorities are, and about existing bugs.
It’s not about ‘you don’t like it’ or ‘you don’t like change’ - the point is that an upgrade of this sort should have worked FROM these ideas and usage styles to provide a better, more consistent, more coherent version of the system that supports how people use it, only better. I can forgive a few rough edges, or a few odd mistakes - but this seems to be an upgrade run by a graphical design agency that does not understand interaction (the circular icons that are just centred on the original square image are a prime example of this), and which seems to have not been listening to either their users or their beta testers - and so it’s got just over half the people giving it grudging approval… They have gone about it in the wrong way, which is why they have the issues they have had.
I preferred in 1.7 that the Album Artist links were blue. Now they are always white (and you have to point at it to show underlined, if it does). Some albums have a longer list and not every one does necessarily have an actual entry creating a clickable link. The blue also made it easier to see during editing if you did everything right.
Edit: It’s another instance of the more print-like design, while IMO looking nice statically, forgetting about interaction
What is interesting to me is that I looked at the profiles of a number of the most vocal supporters of the new version 1.8 on the Roon forum.
It appeared to me that a substantial majority of those posting in favour were of a ‘young’ demographic, and many of them were also very new (a few months) or relatively new to to Roon itself.
I suspect that the executives at Roon commissioned a consultancy to advise on ways of increasing its revenue and number of subscribers, and that the agency has advised them to aim for a significantly younger demographic for commercial reasons. As a result of this they have focussed on a minimalist approach and on users of phones or small tablets and introduced statistical information gimmicks (such as a graph indicating how many hours use of Roon you have had this month) that young people are used to seeing on other apps and likely available out of the box from their new Web Design/Development platform.
I might regret that they have done this, but I don’t blame them. They have a large number of subscribers with paid up lifetime licenses. They will get no revenue from them in the future, so they almost certainly have had to do something drastic to survive.
I’m just sorry that the preferences of the younger generation don’t seem to align well with those of an older demographic such as myself!
With a bit of code hacking thanks to an intrepid member on the Roon forum (thread with instructions now gone, which is no surprise) one can at least tone things down a bit.So all elements for me (boxes, play buttons etc) are now in baby blue.
The circular artist frames most likely come from the Bandcamp design. Thing is, on Bandcamp, you are dealing with a single artist at a time to a page, or perhaps a half dozen to the side in one of their articles. But start putting hundreds or thousands together (and obnoxious initials for the ones missing pics) and it quickly overwhelms and takes up a lot of space. Yet one more really poor design decision.
I think you have nailed it really. I even have ‘issues’ with print magazines trying to be too clever. Nice to look at, difficult to read for information. I often seem to take three passes to be sure I’ve actually read everything, and not missed a side-box or something. Some of the positive comments from ‘design professionals’ remind me of a suspicion that they are designing for other ‘design professionals’ and ‘industry awards’ juries…
Is that not a good thing? Simplicity is elegant?
I use a macbook pro, iphone and ipad.
Btw, I am retiring in a few months, so I can’t say that I am young, but I would not go back to 1.7, I think there are a number of issues such as fonts, font sizes, lot of empty spaces, etc. but I am confident that they will be sorted in due course.
It’s not just about ‘preferences’ though - there are things that should be there and aren’t, etc. There are well-established principles of consistency, visibility etc that are ignored at one’s peril (and it has indeed been perilous in this case). Fine to appeal to a different demographic - but they are not going to be demanding inconsistent font choices, hiding useful information, etc etc.
Simplicity is indeed ideal - one definition of effective design is removing all that can be removed. I think the point is that all the positives could and should be in the new release, and most of the negatives could have been avoided. there are not consequences of the good changes, they are usually just ‘changes’ for the sake of it.
They could have made this an all-round better experience, and even had the information prior to release, according to those on the beta forum - yet chose to ignore it. It’s that which makes it so frustrating.
I believe that’s also the problem with the red “Collaborators” banner, and others in loud colors. I can see me liking this in a magazine, but there I see each page once in my life. And I don’t have to interact with it, so I don’t mind if it changes between pages or issues of the magazine, as long as it remains within the common design framework. (Though I agree with “‘issues’ with print magazines trying to be too clever”, but at least I don’t have to interact).
In a software UI, however, they obviously cannot keep changing all the time. And as design elements that are always there in the same way, every time I go to a view of this kind, they are too loud
Like the baby blue. But I don’t hate the purple but that does look better imo. Shame I use phone more as cant change it on there. If they only gave it as a user choice it would be great , but I guess they don’t want everybody mucking about with the brand’s identify, which is understandable.
Possibly, or even probably when it comes down to ease of functionality.
However, simplicity in the form of black on white or white on black as opposed to an aesthetically pleasing rendering of colour and graphics is nothing to do with simplicity of functionality.
The old version looked to me to be plain ‘nicer’. You of course may disagree. It’s a matter of personal preference.
I have to admit, I prefer the text layout and font sizes of 1.8. Maybe a slightly different colour text for the artist name. In 1.7 the text of the album name etc is too close to the size of the body text and gets lost a little.