!! ITS THERE !!

[DJ Colin]

I have to agree with other forum members above that the user interface is not good I get the feeling that too many features shoe horned in to a limited space making it difficult to read/use in low light environment.  The waste of screen space taken by the turntables when they are turned off - why not use that space to increase the icons within the decks as they are now very difficult to see.

I can and do embrace change however when some of the original useful functionality of Ots is dropped and replaced by new features that deliver a poor user interface I have to ask why?

I have used 1.90m now for approx my last 24 bookings and I have had experienced, for the first time in 10 years of using Ots and on the laptop I have used for the last 6 years, Ots crashing during 4 of the bookings on 1 occasions requiring a reboot of my laptop.  I am currently troubleshooting what could have caused this.

[Nicolee]

I too am not keen on the new interface, and although we have been encouraged to embrace change by the OTS guys I have given the new interface a period of nearly two months which I believe is more than fair.

I think the problem is there is too information on the screen and as a result too tightly packed. I don't use a controller as I have had issues with one in the past and refuse to get stung again. The buttons on the decks are simply too small, an extremely steady hand is required if you want to use the looping features as I have had instances of ejecting the track from the deck which has caused a few unhappy faces. Although I have enabled live protection to prevent this nether the less its still a problem and indicates an issue with the cluttered display. Harsh words to follow as I feel the person responsible for such a terrible design should be shot and be at very least be embarrassed for creating such an ugly mess to system that used to work.

One thing comes to mind..... if it ain't broke.... don't try to fix it....

[Dr.J]

I'm sure the purpose of the redesign wasn't to make your job harder, but to offer improvements. There isn't any single design that will make every user happy, but OtsLabs has noted this is the first iteration of Esperance and are looking to improve with each forthcoming edition. Let's see what they have up their sleeve before we condemn the design team to a fiery stake!

[Nicolee]

I appreciate the poor design wasn't intentional, and was to try and improve things. However I feel and so do a few others this is a massive fail. There are ways of arriving from A to Z as you can use all the steps in between, but I feel OTS have just made the massive jump in one go. If we had a slow transition with a regular update process then this would not have been noticed in such a dramatic way, and there is the problem because there was nothing in between the display is so different to what many were so used to.

Don't get me wrong I think change is good, but it has to be for the right reasons and be implemented slowly to give folks time to adapt. This simply wasn't done, and for starters I would have thought OTS would have put out there a few layout designs for consultation by the hands that has fed them for so long, I think giving the end user a choice is always a good idea as after all you buy a product with the view to using it on a regular basis. Why would anyone use a product on a regular basis that was difficult and cumbersome to use?

And this is the way OTS has gone, it's become cumbersome to use and isn't delightful to use any more. But I think people will put up and shut up because it's all they have used for so long due to it's reliability, I would go to far as say people have been told to a degree to either put up and shut up or go else where because this is the development path OTScorp have chosen to follow.

Just my thoughts after all OTScorp are a business and have made there own decisions and thus decided which way to go with regard to the design.

[Jumpin' Jeff]

Remember, The new interface is by no means finished. It's a temporary version that will likely see some further changes in the next update. The single color option for example, will very likely have a few more options, much like the previous version of OtsAV having at least 4.

[scott hanna]

Perhaps they focused too much on a mobile DJ's likes, because I can tell you, as a mobile DJ, every way I use the software was improved.  The search and creating playlists are lights out better than before.  The small buttons are buttons I don't use very often.

As I've been very vocal about before, I don't agree with everything, and don't agree with a $200 fee for the upgrade, but for the ones that come with it, I'm using it and very happy with it.

[Mike Sinclair]

And, for those that don't browse the "for sale" section, just a "heads up": I am selling one of my Ots licenses (already upgraded to Esperance) for $200. Check it out

[Ed]

And, for those that don't browse the "for sale" section, just a "heads up": I am selling one of my Ots licenses (already upgraded to Esperance) for $200. Check it out

See folks, there are still deals around!!   

[cyberbeat]

Another perspective on the new interface.  something you probably never thought of

I'm a legally blind computer user who has been happily using previous versions of DJ from the beginning with a screen reader.  I've always been impressed with OtsLab's commitment to adapt their products for those of us who are disabled especially the blind community.

Well, in the latest release that all changed for some reason.  Now what I'm faced with is some kind of strange interface which is totally useless to me.  I appreciate all the keyboard shortcuts, but what good are they if you can't read the items in a listview, combo/edit box,, or whatever other custom control?

[Jumpin' Jeff]

I totally get that! Not that I have a vision problem, but I do have other things in mind...

I am completely unable to capture anything from the new interface. menus, playlists, edit boxes. All of it!

I suspect the new interface is WPF instead of straigt C++, and that the code behind is still somehow C++.

[Jumpin' Jeff]

I've investingated the interface a little further, and it does not register as WPF. More likely a DirectX interface, as it is a more "low level" interface than WPF, and is used in high performance apps and gaming.

[Darryl]

It's probably just win32 calls - I remember Steve saying he didn't like to use any third party libraries unless he had to - i.e. it's written in straight C++.  WPF is a .NET technology and the application is definitely a native (i.e. not .NET) application.