Music Software for the Masses

How to reach new target groups through user-centered design

H E N R I K L E N B E R G

Master of Science Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2011

Music Software for the Masses

How to reach new target groups through user-centered design

H E N R I K L E N B E R G

Master’s Thesis in Computer Science (30 ECTS credits) at the School of Engineering Physics Royal Institute of Technology year 2011 Supervisor at CSC was Alex Olwal Examiner was Lars Kjelldahl TRITA-CSC-E 2011:070 ISRN-KTH/CSC/E--11/070--SE ISSN-1653-5715 Royal Institute of Technology School of Computer Science and Communication KTH CSC SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden URL: www.kth.se/csc

AbstractMusic Software for the MassesHow to reach new target groups through user-centered design

!e main argument in this report is that the number of music makers would grow signi"cantly if music applications were easier to use. Today's applications have excellent technical capabilities, but their design makes them too complicated for new users without technical know-how and interest. Many people want to make music but "nd it too di#cult to get started. To bridge this gap, we need to design better user interfaces to make music so$ware attractive and accessible for more people.

!is thesis has a qualitative approach and is mainly based on 28 in-depth interviews with users, domain experts and stakeholders from the commissioning company. !e goal is to learn more about why people want to make music and why music applications are hard to learn for some users. I also investigate Propellerhead So$ware's design process and how it a%ects the company's products.

!e results show that music so$ware companies are not employing user research as a foundation for product design. Instead, they are making technology-focused applications with an emphasis on new features. !eir main goal is to satisfy existing users and little e%ort is made to target a broader audience beyond current user types. People generally want to make music because it is fun, but the technical barrier is too high for many new users.

I suggest that Propellerhead employs a user-centered design process with a clear strategy for gathering extensive knowledge about potential users. !is knowledge should be used as foundation for new product design. !e product focus must shi$ from technology to creation, and the main goal should be to improve interaction rather than adding new technical features. Traditional paradigms must be rethought and new interfaces must be restructured based on the users’ mental models, instead of relying on the current implementation model.

SammanfattningMusikprogram för massornaHur vi når nya målgrupper med användarcentrerad design

Huvudargumentet i denna rapport är att antalet användare av datorbaserade musikprogram skulle växa signi"kant om programmen vore enklare att använda. Dagens produkter erbjuder utomordentliga tekniska möjligheter men är alldeles för komplicerade för personer som saknar speci"kt kunnande och intresse. Många vill göra musik men har svårt att komma igång. För att nå dessa användare måste vi designa nya gränssnitt och göra musikprogrammen mer tillgängliga och attraktiva.

Rapporten bygger på en kvalitativ studie, huvudsakligen bestående av 28 djupintervjuer med användare, domänexperter samt representanter från uppdragsgivaren. Målet är att lära utreda varför människor vill göra musik och vad det är som gör musikprogrammen så komplicerade för vissa användare. Jag utvärderar också Propellerheads designprocess och hur den påverkar företagets produkter.

Slutsatsen är att de &esta företag som utvecklar musikprogram inte använder användarstudier i tillräcklig utsträckning. Nya program baseras huvudsakligen på nya funktioner istället för förbättrad interaktionsdesign. Företagen fokuserar på att tillfredsställa existerande användare och gör väldigt lite för att bredda sin målgrupp. De &esta vill göra musik för att det är roligt och stimulerande men för många är den tekniska barriären alltför för hög för att de ska kunna komma igång.

Mitt förslag är att Propellerhead övergår till en användarcentrerad designprocess med en tydlig strategi för att samla in omfattande kunskap om potentiella användare. Denna kunskap bör sedan ligga till grund för all ny produktdesign. Fokus måste ski$a från att bygga nya funktioner till att göra det enklare för musikskapare genom förbättrad interaktionsdesign. Traditionella paradigm måste tänkas om och nya gränssnitt måste designas utifrån användarnas mentala modeller, inte e$er hur programmet är implementerat.

Preface!is project was initiated by the author, Henrik Lenberg, and carried out at Propellerhead So!ware in Stockholm, Sweden. Supervisor at Propellerhead was Ernst Nathorst-Böös, who is the company cofounder and CEO. Supervisor at the Royal Institute of Technology was Alex Olwal (Ph.D.). Examiner was docent Lars Kjelldahl at the school of Computer Science and Communication.

About Propellerhead Software!ese are excerpts from Propellerhead's website [Propellerhead 2010]:

"Propellerhead So!ware is one of the world's leading makers of so!ware musical instruments. It pioneered the concept of computer based so!ware synthesis, invented the concept of "recycling" sampled sound material and continues to raise the bar for quality, usability and new technology in so!ware based music making."

"Propellerhead So!ware is on a mission. We have our hearts and minds focused with laser precision on one single target: To provide musicians on this planet with the tools they need to make their musical dreams a reality. We are totally and completely committed to putting previously expensive audio hardware technology within the reach of every musician."

About the AuthorMusic and technology have always been my main interests so for me it was a natural choice to take a closer look at the current state of music so$ware as the "nal part of my specialization in human computer interaction. Before I began studying, I worked as a sound engineer at the Swedish Radio. Besides working with traditional analog audio equipment, I have years of experience from using music so$ware and deejay equipment.

My initial suggestion for this project was to explore the possibility to make Propellerhead's applications available on mobile platforms, but a$er discussing with the company, I decided to go for a more general approach and look at how so$ware can be designed di%erently to work better for new user groups. I ended up spending almost a year at Propellerhead and learned a lot about so$ware development in general and music so$ware in particular.

About the Report!is report is written for anyone involved in music so$ware design. My main intention is to forward as much valuable information as possible to Propellerhead, but I also hope it will be a valuable read for anyone with a general interest in the "eld. !e report should also act as evidence of my personal engagement and knowledge within the "elds of interaction design and music technology.

!e Background chapter gives an introduction to the current state of the music so$ware industry and outlines the scope of this project. !e general assumption is that there is a potential for growth if we can attract new, yet untapped, user groups with di%erently designed products. However, companies such as Propellerhead, will likely need a new design process to be able to shi$ the direction of product development. !e goal of this project is to learn more about the potential users and the domain in order to make suggestions for how Propellerhead could make this change.

"eory gives an introduction to the "eld of interaction design and the qualitative research approach used in this project. It also highlights three design aspects that I "nd especially relevant for music so$ware design.

Method describes the qualitative research made in this project in more detail. !e approach is mainly based on interviews with stakeholders, subject matter experts, and potential users. I also have conducted domain research through various readings.

Results summarizes the outcomes of the research activities and further describes the current state of the music so$ware industry and its users.

In Discussion I draw conclusions based on the results and make suggestions for how Propellerhead can improve its design process and make its products more attractive and useful for new user types. I also re&ect on the project and give suggestions for future research.

AcknowledgmentsI especially want to thank Ernst Nathorst-Böös for supporting the project and generously sharing his extensive knowledge. I thank Alex Olwal for great supervision and interest in the subject. I thank all the Propellerhead employees and

the people I interviewed for their kind help. I thank Heather Ra$er and Rasmus Rahm for valuable feedback on the report, and Sebastian Razola for helping with the graphic layout.

Table of Contents1 Background

1.1 Music So$ware for Everyone 1

1.2 General Assumptions 7

1.3 Project Scope 7

1.4 Limitations 8

1.5 Chapter Summary 9

2 Theory

2.1 What is Interaction Design 10

2.2 A Challenge for Companies 11

2.3 !e User-Centered Design Process 12

2.4 Qualitative User Research 14

2.5 Metaphors and Idioms 22

2.6 Beginners and Experts 25

2.7 Chapter Summary 27

3 Method

3.1 Domain Research 28

3.2 Company Research 30

3.3 Stakeholder Interviews 30

3.4 Subject Matter Expert Interviews 34

3.5 User Interviews 38

3.6 User Testing 45

3.7 Chapter Summary 45

4 Results

4.1 Music So$ware Today 46

4.2 Propellerhead's Development Process 49

4.3 Propellerhead’s Products 51

4.4 User Insights 53

4.5 Chapter Summary 58

5 Discussion

5.1 !e Need for Change 59

5.2 Establish a User-Centered Design Process 59

5.3 Focus on Beginners Besides Experts 62

5.4 Focus on Interaction Instead of New Features 63

5.5 Design Suggestions 64

5.6 Lessons from a Successful Approach 67

5.7 Re&ections on the Project 69

5.8 Future Work 70

5.9 Chapter Summary 71

References

Appendix

Summary of Stakeholder Interviews 74

Summary of Subject Matter Expert Interviews 82

Summary of Insights from User Interviews 89

1 Background"Computers have played a massive role in changing the way we live over the last couple of decades. "ey are no longer possessions of the privileged but are rapidly becoming inexpensive, everyday commodities." [Harper et al. 2008]

1.1 Music Software for Everyone!e evolution of computer so$ware has dramatically changed music technology and the way we produce music. Today, every Apple computer comes with the application GarageBand preinstalled, and it is easy to "nd other music applications for free. In theory, this means anyone with a computer has access to music creation tools with a quality that was previously only available in professional settings.

Music focused games, like Guitar Hero, have been extremely successful with hundreds of millions of users which indicates a huge general interest for music interaction. New mobile platforms, like the iPhone, and gaming consoles, like the Playstation, have millions of users and great technical potential for hosting music applications.

As in many other areas, the evolution of the internet is radically changing the "eld of music. It opens up access to knowledge and tools for music creation, but it also facilitates a global social network for music making and consumption. Music collaborations can happen between creators spread across the world, a piece of music can be instantly shared from anywhere to everywhere, and the amount of available music is growing very fast.

In the product description for the application Record, Propellerhead proclaims that it is "designed for musicians not audio engineers" and "Making music should be as easy as powering up a computer, loading up a powerful piece of music so!ware, and getting down to business." [Propellerhead 2010]

However, many people still view so$ware-based music creation as something technically complicated and most of today's applications are based on concepts originally used in professional music studios. Unlike so$ware, a studio o$en comes with a professional sound engineer who is trained to handle the technical aspects, so it is no wonder that the average music creator has a hard time making proper use of the available tools. Here are two other examples of what well-known music so$ware companies write about their products:

1

"Sequel 2 is the ideal entry to music creation on your computer. "is extremely easy to use, all-in-one music studio combines exceedingly intuitive tools (…) With its revolutionary graphic interface, Sequel makes professional Steinberg audio technology available to anyone with a PC or Mac computer. It’s the ideal tool for anyone to produce and perform their own music — even without any prior knowledge of music and production techniques." [Steinberg 2010]

"Even if you have no recording experience, you’ll be able to get up and running quickly. Concentrate on your music without worrying about confusing audio so!ware. Best of all, you get the peace of mind knowing that Music Creator was developed by Cakewalk, a leading audio manufacturer solely dedicated to creating music so!ware for anyone with a musical dream. Created by musicians, for musicians." [Cakewalk 2010]

!e list could be made longer since most so$ware companies are making similar claims about making products to support musicians at all experience levels. !e question is how good they are at delivering on this promise. For instance, none of the companies appears to have more than about three percent female users. !is is a clear indication that something is missing in terms of product accessibility and appeal.

1.1.1 Previous Thesis WorkIn 2006, Anders Ljung wrote a Master !esis titled Propellerhead Reason for Novices. !e goal was to "identify the functions and objects in the music so!ware Reason that are the hardest for beginners to understand" and "design solutions that would minimize these di#culties without annoying more experienced users." [Ljung 2006]

Ljung conducted user testing and identi"ed a number of problems related to Reason's interface. He found that the following speci"c tasks and areas are especially frequent and problematic for new users:

• !e lack of conceptual understanding of the program structure• Di#culties in getting the program units to make sound• Di#culties in recording sound data

Apart from this thesis, Propellerhead has not done any thorough qualitative user research of the kind I propose in this project, but Anders is now employed as a usability engineer and does recurrent usability testing of Propellerhead's products.

2

1.1.2 Example ApplicationsTo give concrete examples, I will use the following well-known desktop applications for recoding and mixing multiple tracks. On a high level, they have similar features for music creation, but on a low level, they provide di%erent interfaces for these features.

Propellerhead Record extends the capabilities of Reason, Propellerhead's most successful product to date, by adding audio recording, which makes it a more complete solution for music production. Propellerhead's products are built to imitate closely traditional analog studio gear, both in terms of how the devices look and function, and how they are connected with virtual cables. !e applications are known to have great stability and technical performance. Reason is now fully integrated in Record, so I will refer to both applications when making illustrations. Read more at: http://www.propellerheads.se/products/

Overview of Propellerhead Record with the mixer, rack, and sequencer panes visible

Ableton Live has been growing steadily in popularity over the last years, especially for electronic music making. As the name suggests, Live was originally designed for live performances, but with later versions it has turned more into a complete solution for music production. Live has a minimalistic and easily recognizable

3

interface, which has been celebrated for its ease of use and great work&ow. Read more at: http://www.ableton.com/live

Overview of Ableton Live with the library, mixer, and editing panes visible

Apple GarageBand is designed and marketed as an application for beginners and has less features than Record and Live, but is still very capable for music production. Apple is leading the way in showing how to lower the barriers for new users, not only by designing the application di%erently, but also by tailoring marketing and distribution, as well as support and education, to work better for beginners. Read more at: http://www.apple.com/ilife/garageband/

!ese are some other popular applications to look at if you want to learn more about today's music so$ware:

• Apple Logic Studio: http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/• Avid Pro Tools: http://www.avid.com/products/family/Pro-Tools• Cakewalk Sonar: http://www.cakewalk.com/products/sonar/• Steinberg Cubase: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/cubase/

4

Overview of Apple GarageBand with the sequencer and library panes visible

1.1.3 A Typical ProblemLet me provide an example to illustrate the type of problem some users can have when using the currently available applications. A singer-songwriter wants to record her guitar and voice. One of the fundamental ways to shape sound is to use an equalizer to modify the frequency response of the recorded signal. For instance, she might want to give the guitar some more bass and the voice some more treble. !e problem is that the equalizer interface in Record is designed to emulate an analog hardware device.

As you can see in the images on the next page, the user has to deal with concepts like HMF, dB, kHz, and Q to "gure out the controls. More speci"cally, she has to understand the concepts of frequency, gain, and q factor to be able to use the device e%ectively. !ese concepts are commonly used in engineering disciplines, but they carry less meaning for the music creator without the technical knowledge.

GarageBand has a slightly limited but otherwise similar feature set to Record and other music applications. However, the user interface is in many ways designed di%erently to make it easier for users. For a voice track, the user can select settings from a list of presets, all named to describe their e%ect on the voice, for instance Pop Vocals. If she wants to, she can open the Edit tab and make changes to the preset. !e equalizer has a graphical representation of the frequency adjustments, a list of presets is clearly available, and the frequency details are hidden by default.

5

!e equalizer in Live is using the same concepts as the equalizer in Record, but the interface has no resemblance to any hardware product. Instead, it uses a graphical representation similar to the one in GarageBand, but with more advanced options and without the presets.

"e Record EQ next to its analog predecessor (le!) "e track settings panes in GarageBand (right)

"e graphical equalizers in Live (le!) and Garageband (right)

6

1.2 General AssumptionsAs so$ware designers, we need to examine critically the available music applications and ask ourselves how good they are at supporting music creators in realizing their creative potential. My argument is that most applications fail in supporting certain user types, which means there is untapped potential in reaching these user types through improved design. In this report I will exemplify and explore this argument by taking a closer look at Propellerhead So$ware and its context.

!is project is based on two general assumptions:

• !e technical overhead in music application creates a high barrier for new users, keeping them from realizing their interest in music making

• So$ware could be designed to better support music creators without demanding any deeper knowledge, or interest in, music technology

I strongly believe that there are better ways to design interfaces and make the underlying technology more accessible for non-expert users, without sacri"cing the quality of output. !ere has to be ways to design an equalizer so that a music creator can get the results he seeks, without having to adopt an engineering mindset. Of course, there will still be a need for expert tools, but there also lies vast potential in designing applications for di%erent user types. !e aim of this project is to explore further this potential.

If we can improve the applications, more music creators will be able to realize and share their creative ideas. New designs can potentially open up the world of music making to a much larger user group, but the music so$ware industry needs new processes for product development to realize this change.

1.3 Project Scope!e scope of this project is to learn more about new users, without experience in traditional methods for music creation, and investigate how Propellerhead can get better at designing new so$ware to support these users.

!e main motive for supporting inexperienced users is that they constitute the majority of potentially new customers. !e majority of new users are beginners and targeting this group is presumably the best way of growing the company and its pro"ts. With a qualitative approach, I will investigate the following questions:

7

• Why are people making music?• How is music making creating value for users?• What contextual factors are a%ecting the music making process?• What are the goals and abilities of potential users?• What are the main barriers for new users?• Can we change the process of making music to improve the users' conceptual

understanding?• What are the users' mental models for existing products?• What are the di%erences between male and female users?• How can potential users be categorized?

!e investigation will strive for a better understanding of the company and its stakeholders, the current and potential users, and the music so$ware industry. !e main focus will not be on how to improve the existing products, but rather to explore the possibility of designing new applications, speci"cally targeted to the new user group.

1.3.1 Potential Users!e type of users we view as potential have the following characteristics:

• None or very limited knowledge and experience in music technology and traditional techniques for music production

• A deep interest in music• A clearly expressed interest in creating their own music• Experienced and frequent computer users

Applications like Record currently have very few female users. I will investigate why this is the case, how to support female users better and if targeting female users would support certain types of male users as well. !e assumption is that if we manage to support more female users, we will improve the support for male users as well.

1.4 Limitations!e aim of this project is not to present speci"c designs of new products, but instead make suggestions for how Propellerhead can change its design process in order to design better products within the company. Focus will be on research aspects related to user behavior and interaction design. Having one person doing

8

design work in a single iteration would be completely against the theory base used for this project. However, I will try to be as concrete as possible when giving recommendations for new approaches to design.

To limit the scope, I will also leave out some complex, albeit very important, business-related issues. It is obvious that product marketing plays a vital role for reaching new users and I will try to make suggestions for improvements, but I will not investigate questions like: how big is the market of potential users and how much money are certain user types likely to spend on music creation tools?

1.5 Chapter SummaryIn this chapter, I gave a brief introduction to the current state of music so$ware and concluded that music technology is more accessible than ever due to the general adaption of computers and great performance even for low price music so$ware. However, most applications are still designed to replicate traditional studio gear and are, therefore, too complicated to use for most potential music creators.

My general assumption is that new approaches to music so$ware design can better support music creators in realizing their musical ideas. A di%erent approach could open up the "eld of computer-based music creation to a much larger user group. !e scope of this project is to learn more about potential users and investigate how Propellerhead can explore this possibility as an e%ective way to grow its customer base. However, the goal is not to come up with new design ideas speci"cally, but rather, provide Propellerhead suggestions for how to carry out the design work within the company.

!e following chapter will describe how interaction design theory can be applied to music so$ware and give some examples on strengths and weaknesses in the currently available applications.

9

2 Theory!is chapter gives an introduction to the theory used in this project. !e approach is mainly based on the "rst four chapters of Alan Cooper's book About Face 3: "e Essentials of Interaction Design [Cooper et al. 2007]. !e book is practically oriented but also covers most of the background theory for the suggested research methods. Drawing upon Cooper's landmark contribution, this thesis has a qualitative user-centric approach.

Cooper suggests the use of qualitative user research as the foundation for successful product design. Although sometimes challenged, the qualitative approach is generally supported by interaction design researchers and practitioners. Cooper makes it clear how his suggestions relate to other in&uential writers, which also makes the book a very good starting point for anyone interested in the "eld.

Apart from using speci"c domain and user knowledge as the foundation for new products, designers should also draw upon lessons learned in other areas of so$ware design. Cooper provides practical advice on how to improve a number of general design aspects [Cooper et al. 2007] and for this project I have picked three aspects that I "nd especially relevant for music so$ware design. I will use these aspects to illustrate problems in existing applications and ways to improve them.

2.1 What is Interaction DesignInteraction design refers to the shaping of interactive products and services with a speci"c focus on their use. !ere are two main senses of the concept, coming out of di%erent intellectual traditions: interaction design is either viewed as a design discipline (like industrial design or graphic design) or as an extension of human computer interaction (closer to the "eld of computer science). However, the two perspectives are increasingly converging in both practice and research, with an increasing amount of design activities as well as increasing focus on the user experience [Löwgren 2008].

!e aim for interaction design is to produce products and services that satisfy speci"c user needs, business goals, and technical constraints [IxDA 2009]. So$ware design is a user oriented "eld and will always have the human openness of disciplines such as architecture and graphic design, rather than the well-de"ned and exact nature of traditional engineering practices [Gordon and Winograd 1996]. As

10

technology evolves, interaction designers will play an increasingly important role for ensuring that innovations are used in a way that serves people's needs.

!e problem is that viewing the development of digital products as a design discipline is still uncommon within the IT industry, where the construction-based view is still the dominating [Löwgren and Stolterman 2004]. Naturally, the technical knowledge is necessary for creating digital artifacts, but the design perspective is crucial for dealing with the complexity of questions related to human behavior. Even though interaction design is the natural theory base for this study, it will likely be a challenge to promote a design approach within a traditional engineering environment.

To avoid too much abstraction, the key is to use the methodologies in a structured fashion. Interaction design should be based on the understanding of users and cognitive principles, which will allow for a repeatable process of analysis and synthesis. Even so, we have to remember that it will always be hard to motivate a change of a pro"table process. Companies like Propellerhead and Ableton have been very successful in growing the companies and deriving revenues from their products. As long as the products are pro"table, it will be a risk to change the strategy into a more uncertain direction. A better understanding about users will hopefully help the companies set new goals in a changing world, where the current product strategies become less pro"table.

For the interested reader, I recommend Designing Interactions [Moggridge 2006] as an introduction to the "eld of interaction design, and "e Design of Everyday "ings [Norman 2002] as an introduction to general design principles.

2.2 A Challenge for Companies!e main assumption in this report is that the music so$ware makers need to change their processes to design better products. Most of today's products are too complex for non-expert users and there is a large opportunity to reach out to new user groups through improved design. But why are companies generally quite bad at designing great interactions? !e main reasons according to Cooper [Cooper et al. 2007] are: ignorance about users, a con&ict of interest between serving human needs and construction priorities, and the lack of a process for understanding human needs as an aid to developing appropriate product form and behavior. Simply put, companies have a hard time understanding their current and potential

11

users and they lack good processes for product design based on qualitative user research.

More and more companies embrace the idea of bringing customers into the development process. However, they o$en have a hard time changing their products because the current development process assumes that the user interface should be addressed a$er the coding begins. In music so$ware design there is a strong focus on features. Users formulate their wishes as new features and technology media mainly reviews products based on feature sets and speci"cations. !e problem is that the feature focus forces the developers to prioritize technological advancements over improved interaction design and the overall user experience.

Music applications are o$en designed by the people who also build them. Decisions about what the products will do and how they will communicate with users are, in the worst cases, simply a byproduct of their construction. Companies also tend to design products for themselves. !at is, the products tend to work well for users with similar interests and knowledge as the people working at the company.

!ere is a general assumption that users need to be computer literate and the process of making music has an inherent complexity that users need to overcome if they want to participate. I will argue that this is a false assumption and that the situation can be changed if a company adopts a structured user-centered interaction design process.

2.3 The User-Centered Design ProcessUnfortunately, there is no strictly de"ned way for how to structure and execute a design process. A certain company designing a product for a certain type of user will always form a unique situation which requires a unique design process. !e process itself has to be carefully designed and redesigned to match its ever changing context. It is a complex process and therefore needs specialized designers. !is complexity makes it very hard to have a totally rational approach, meaning there is nothing like a perfect design process with a perfect result. Handling this complexity requires a re&ecting approach where the designer continuously evaluate the ongoing process and the results it generates [Löwgren and Stolterman 2004].

Companies have to realize that the complex task of managing user research and product design requires highly specialized design skills in a similar way that building complex so$ware requires highly specialized developers. !erefore, the

12

product development process must incorporate design as an equal partner with engineering, marketing, and business management. !is setup also includes well-de"ned responsibilities and authority for each group. A working design process will help identifying user requirements, as well as de"ning the behavior and appearance of the product [Cooper et al. 2007].

!e design team should have the ultimate responsibility for the users’ satisfaction with the product and must have the authority to decide how the product will ultimately look, feel, and behave. To make design decisions, they also need access to information. !ey must observe and speak to potential users about their needs, to engineers about technological opportunities and constraints, to marketing about opportunities and requirements, and to management about the kind of product to which the organization will commit [Cooper et al. 2007].

Establishing a new design process takes both time and e%ort and some engineers will be happy about getting directions from a designer, while others will not like to be constrained and eventually leave the company [Beyer and Holtzblatt 1997].

2.3.1 How to Structure a Goal Directed Design Process!e general theme in a user-centered design process is to use knowledge from extensive research about users and the domain as a foundation for product design, thus increasing the value of using the product. Cooper suggests a goal directed design process which can be roughly divided into six phases: Research, Modeling, Requirements De"nition, Framework De"nition, Re"nement, and Support.

!e main goals for the goal directed design process are:

• To understand users’ desires, needs, motivations, and contexts.• To understand business, technical, and domain opportunities, requirements,

and constraints.• To use this knowledge as a foundation for plans to create products whose form,

content, and behavior is useful, usable, and desirable, as well as economically viable and technically feasible.

!e focus is on user's goals, instead of tasks, in order to thoroughly understand why a user is performing an activity, task, action, or operation. Understanding goals will make it easier to understand the expectations and aspirations of the users, which

13

will in turn help when deciding which activities are truly relevant to the design [Cooper et al. 2007].

In this project I am focusing on the research phase of the suggested design process. It employs observation and contextual interviews to provide qualitative data about potential and actual users. It also includes competitive product audits, reviews of market research and strategy, as well as interviews with stakeholders and subject matter experts in this particular domain. !e remaining phases of the suggested design process will not be further described in this report.

In the remainder of this chapter, I will focus on qualitative user research methods and three speci"c design aspects which I "nd especially relevant for the design of music so$ware. !ey are:

• Mental Models• Metaphors and Idioms• Beginners and Experts

2.4 Qualitative User ResearchSocial scientists have long realized that human behavior is o$en too complex to rely solely on quantitative data to understand it. Deep knowledge about users can only be achieved by qualitative research techniques. !e problem is that a qualitative approach generates less quantitative data. !erefore, it is very hard to apply a traditional engineering approach to understand the human activity of using computer so$ware [Cooper et al. 2007].

Cooper argues that qualitative methods tend to be faster, less expensive, and more likely to provide useful answers to important questions that lead to superior design:

• How does the product "t into the broader context of people’s lives?• What goals motivate people to use the product, and what basic tasks help

people accomplish these goals?• What experiences do people "nd compelling? How do these relate to the

product being designed?• What problems do people encounter with their current ways of doing things?

14

!e user research should be carried out by the people who design the products so that they can understand the user's context. Isolating designers from the users will eliminate the empathic knowledge [Cooper et al. 2007].

In this project, I have used the research techniques that have proven most e%ective in practice according to Cooper.

2.4.1 Stakeholder InterviewsIn this report we understand members of the company with the responsibilities for the product being designed as stakeholders. !is typically includes managers and certain representatives from the company's di%erent departments (development, marketing, sales, and product management). Understanding the business and technical context is the foundation for successful user research. Design ideas are only great if they are feasible and viable so the designer is responsible for not losing sight of the business goals and for understanding the constraints in resources and technology.

Stakeholders should preferably be interviewed one at a time to give the designer a more nuanced understanding of the situation. Individual interviews will also show to what extent the shareholders share a common vision. If there are di%erent views about the direction of the product in the team, the designer has to work towards a shared vision to eliminate friction at an early stage.

2.4.2 Subject Matter Expert InterviewsA subject matter expert (SME) is a person who is an expert in a particular area or topic. In this case, an expert in the domain within which the product will operate, but not necessarily with any technical knowledge about how to actually build the product. SMEs might be experienced users, teachers, dealers, or in other ways familiar with how and by whom the products are used.

For the designer, it is important to recognize that the SMEs o$en represent a somewhat skewed perspective because of their long-term involvement in the domain. !ey might have a hard time seeing and describing shortcomings in existing solutions since they are o$en expert users.

2.4.3 User InterviewsUnderstanding users is the foundation for successful interaction design and user interviews is one of the best techniques for gaining this knowledge. It is important

15

to speak to both current and potential users to "gure out what satis"es the current users and what would attract potential users.

Naturally, companies receive a lot of feedback from their current users through support, forums, and surveys. !e problem is that this feedback only provides limited insight about how to improve the products and make them more attractive to potential new users. So$ware makers tend to get caught up in making their current users happier by implementing the features they request and making incremental improvements to existing features.

For music so$ware, it is o$en the case that the user is also the person who makes the purchase decision and eventually also pays for it. !erefore, it is important to understand customer factors such as the goals behind selecting the product and the decision process behind the purchase.

!e type of information we are looking for when interviewing users includes:

• !e context of how the product "ts into their lives or work&ow: when, why, and how the product is or will be used

• Goals and motivations for using their product• Mental model: how users think about their jobs and activities, as well as what• Expectations users have about the product• Problems and frustrations with current products

It is also more e%ective to study users in the context we are trying to understand, rather than simply interviewing them about it. Watching how users behave o$en provides much better results than asking them to describe their behavior. !erefore, a combination of interviewing and observation in the right context is probably the most e%ective technique for gathering qualitative user data.

So how do we "nd suitable people to interview? First, the designers need to create a hypothesis that serves as a starting point in determining what sorts of users and potential users to interview. What di%erent sorts of people might use this product? How might their needs and behaviors vary? What ranges of behavior and types of environments need to be explored? Etcetera. More obvious demographic variables can also help di%erentiate between di%erent kinds of users. In the case of music so$ware, female users are clearly underrepresented. !us, gender can be an interesting demographic variable.

16

!e process of selecting and "nding suitable people to interview is part analysis and part guesswork, but it usually becomes clear if the hypothesis is right or wrong a$er a couple of interviews. !e "ndings from these interviews can then be very helpful in reformulating the hypothesis and making a new selection. !erefore, it is better to start conducting interviews and iterate, instead of being predetermined about user characteristics.

Early interviews should be exploratory in nature and focused on gathering domain knowledge from the user's point of view. In the next stage, the designers begin to see patterns of use and ask clarifying questions to connect the dots. In the last stage, the interviews are used to con"rm previously observed patterns, further clarifying user roles and behaviors and making "ne adjustments to assumptions about task and information needs.

Cooper suggest that each presumed behavioral pattern requires about six interviews to verify. He favors a team of two designers per interview, one to drive the interview and the other to take detailed notes, and one hour per user interviewed is o$en su#cient. Furthermore, he has the following recommendations:

• Interview where the interaction happens• Avoid a "xed set of questions• Focus on goals "rst, tasks second• Avoid making the user a designer• Avoid discussions of technology• Encourage storytelling• Ask for a show and tell• Avoid leading questions• Product and competitive audits

Examining existing versions of the program and its main competitors is obviously a good way to gain a better understanding of the domain and the state of the art products. !e design team has to know the strengths and limitations of the currently existing solutions to put new ideas in perspective. It can also be good to interview people that use competing products to understand product di%erences from a user perspective.

17

2.4.4 Domain ReadingsAnother way to better understand the domain is to review any existing domain related literature as well as company related documentation, such as marketing plans, brand strategy, market research, user surveys, product reviews, etcetera.

!e internet is a great source for information when it comes to music so$ware since most companies provide detailed and updated information about their products on their websites. !ere are also a variety of resources for product reviews, and current users vote their opinions in blogs and forum discussions.

2.4.5 Usability TestingTo complement the user interviews and observations, the designer can use a collection of techniques for usability testing (also known as user testing) to measure characteristics of a user's interaction with a product. Typically, usability testing is focused on measuring how well users can complete speci"c tasks and what problems they encounter in doing so. !e techniques are good for evaluating existing products, but since it requires a fairly complete design, it is not as useful for testing prototypes of new designs.

Usability testing is Propellerhead's main method for evaluating its products. !is is an important aspect, but there is also a need for bringing in user research much earlier in the process. Since the products can only be tested when they are close to complete, it will be very hard to make any bigger changes to the interaction design. A new product needs to be evaluated at many stages throughout the design process.

When Anders Ljung did usability testing with Reason users [Ljung 2006], he was able to highlight problems in the current version of the application. However, many of the problems would be very hard to solve with improvements of the application. Instead, it is more likely that Propellerhead needs to design a whole new product from scratch to address fundamental problems such as a new user’s lack of conceptual understanding of the program structure.

2.4.6 Mental Models!e "rst aspect that I see as especially important for music so$ware design is the role of the user's mental model in relation to the represented model of the application.

18

• How the user thinks the application works is called the mental model (also conceptual model)

• How the application is presented is called the represented model (also designer's model)

• How the application works is called the implementation model (also system model)

!e closer the represented model comes to the user’s mental model, the easier he will "nd the application to use and understand. !erefore, it is critical to understand in detail how the targeted users think the application work.

""e most important thing to design properly is the user's conceptual model. Everything else should be subordinated to making that model clear, obvious, and substantial. "at is almost exactly the opposite of how most so!ware is designed." [Liddle in Gordon and Winograd 1996]

In his thesis, Ljung [2006] concludes that getting an overview and conceptual understanding are the critical problem areas for new users of Reason. !is is likely caused by the fact that most new Reason users have very little understanding of the representation model on which Reason is built; we can call it the studio paradigm. Professional music studios are generally built on the following central components:

• !e tape recorder (nowadays replaced by the computer in the form of the sequencer) for recording and playback of multiple audio signals

• !e mixer, for routing and controlling the levels of the audio signals• !e e%ects rack, where various e%ect devices are used for generating or

processing audio signals

Reason is built to imitate traditional hardware devices. !e only thing that is not exactly replicating hardware is the sequencer, which allows for graphical editing of recorded notes. !e main reason for using the studio paradigm was to match the mental models of users who were already familiar with it. At the time Reason was launched, this was a great way to get new users since there were many people who had this type of knowledge but did not use so$ware. However, as we get further away from the time when most music was produced in music studios, the percentage of music creators with this type of knowledge is steadily decreasing. !e old paradigm creates a barrier by forcing new users to learn the represented model.

19

"e Reason rack with the mixer on top of the sound generating devices

"e Reason sequencer

20

Another problem is that the hardware representation limits the design possibilities to hardware constraints. GarageBand takes a slightly di%erent approach than Reason by bringing the di%erent parts (sequencer, mixer, e%ects) closer together. !e interaction is centered on the track arrangement where mixer and e%ect settings are accessible in the context of each track. In Reason, the user has to make mixer settings in the mixer, but GarageBand breaks the studio paradigm by putting the level control for each track directly in the arrangement view.

In GarageBand, the mixer and e$ect settings are available for the selected track

!e opportunity for so$ware makers is to break free from the studio paradigm representation and create a new model that is closer to the mental model of new users. Besides making the application easier to understand and learn, it would also come with the bonus of requiring less cognitive e%ort from the user. For instance, if the relevant controls are made available in the right context, the user has to spend less energy on recalling and locating them. I believe that a lower cognitive load will also support creativity, by leaving more brain resources to the music aspects of creation.

Here is a simple example. In Reason, if the user is editing notes and wants to change the overall level of the channel, he has to navigate away from the editor to the mixer, recall the channel number (or name) and change the level of the channel. In GarageBand, the level is directly accessible and the track selection gives the user a clear visual cue about which track is being edited.

21

In GarageBand, there is a clear visual (green) connection between the track edit pane (lower half) and the level settings for the track (upper le!)

One of the most signi"cant ways in which computers can assist users is by putting a simple face on complex processes. !ere is a lot to be done in terms of automating processes and making music applications more intelligent. !ere are many cases in music production where a certain device is used to accomplish a certain goal with a process that is relatively well-de"ned. In these cases, there is an opportunity to reduce the amount of work required for each task by automating parts of the process. A typical approach is using presets to store and recall settings for one or several devices. Another approach is to obscure complex controls by letting a single control a%ect a number of parameters that are linked. Both these approaches are used in applications today, but I believe there is a lot more to be done to help users with intelligent so$ware. One idea is to use audio analysis to let device settings adopt automatically.

2.5 Metaphors and IdiomsIt is a challenge to break free from the traditional representations and "nd new ways to better match the users' mental model. A central aspect of the hardware representation is the use of hardware metaphors as building blocks for the user interface. !e use of hardware metaphors is very common in so$ware design. Some well-known examples are the trashcan, desktop, "les, and folders used on most popular operating systems.

22

2.5.1 Why Metaphors are Used!e general reason metaphors are used is because designers believe that images of familiar objects will provide shortcuts to easy learning. !e idea is that the users will make an intuitive connection between the visual cues in the interface and their respective functions. As humans, we can grasp the meaning of metaphoric controls in an interface because we mentally connect them with concepts we have already learned.

As mentioned, Propellerhead's applications are built to resemble hardware devices which can be grouped in a rack and connected by virtual cables. !e interface in Reason and Record rely on what is called a global metaphor; a single, overarching metaphor that provides a framework for all the other metaphors in the system. !e problem with a global metaphor is that the user expects consistency with the real world object which obviously puts limitations on how detailed functions can be designed.

2.5.2 The Problems with Metaphors!e "rst argument for not using metaphors is that they limit the possibilities for designing really good interfaces. A strict adherence to metaphors unnecessarily ties interfaces to the workings of the physical world. As an example, the mixer in Reason is relatively good for getting an overview but the number of channels is bound to the size of the mixer. Also, metaphors do not scale well and the amount of metaphors to choose from is obviously limited. As an example, the number of channels in the Record mixer is &exible, but when the number of channels grows, it gets harder and harder to "nd the right parameter.

!e second argument is that new users might not be familiar with the metaphors being used. !e main reason for using a metaphor is that it will be recognized by the user, so if this is not the case there is little bene"t. Even if a user is familiar with a concept, it is not certain that he will be able to intuit the functionality in the so$ware context. An example is how analog synthesizers are modeled in so$ware. !e interface of an analog synth is o$en based on the implementation model where sound is generated by a certain module and then modulated by other modules. Each module o$en has a direct control so that the user can shape the sound according to the way the sound is generated.

23

"e mixer in Record gets harder to navigate when the number of channels grows

With so$ware, it is possible to emulate the sound generating process used in analog synths, but in most cases, the designer choose also to imitate the way the sound is controlled. !e problem is that the concepts used for analog synthesis are quite complex and a new user will not be able to intuit the controls. Providing presets is the common way of helping users "nd sounds they like, but the ability to tweak a sound in a certain direction remains a problem for the inexperienced user.

SubTractor is the basic synth in reason

Analog style synthesis is still the dominating way of shaping synthesized sounds but the use of analog devices clearly requires a technical understanding which is far outside of the scope for anyone that is only interested in sound shaping. We need to let go of this old paradigm and create a better way for people to generate, shape and perform sounds. New users should not have to learn concepts like frequency, envelope, and waveform.

24

2.5.3 An Alternative ApproachAll intuitive connections were once learned, such as how the trashcan is a place for throwing away things. It is actually really easy to learn these type of connections. As humans, we constantly and e%ortlessly learn new things. !erefore, we do not have to rely on metaphors but are free to create new interfaces based on idioms.

"Idiomatic user interfaces solve the problems of the previous two interface types by focusing not on technical knowledge or intuition of function, but rather on the learning of simple, non-metaphorical visual and behavioral idioms to accomplish goals and tasks." [Cooper et al. 2007]

Examples of successful so$ware idioms are windows, hyperlinks, and drop-down menus. In the case of music so$ware, we have the piano roll for editing notes in the sequencer, the graphical waveform as a visual representation of sound, the graphical equalizer for tone curve adjustments, and other concepts not based on real world analogies.

"e graphical waveform is the common visual representation of sound

I believe that it is possible to make a lot more improvements by inventing new idioms for music production features such as sound browsing, sound shaping, note programming, and mixing control.

2.6 Beginners and Experts!e question about whether an application made for expert (pros) or beginners (amateurs) is a hot topic in music so$ware. !e general idea seems to be that it is only possible to make good music with a professional application and the dedicated users o$en discuss esoteric qualities like mix bus resolution and the need of high sample rates. If an application is designed for beginners, it is automatically considered inadequate for serious music making.

!e so$ware companies want to avoid having products that are not considered serious, so they keep the amount of features and complexity high to satisfy the

25

power users and industry media. Unfortunately, the concept of making an application easy to use is inevitably connected to the idea that it would inevitably degrade the quality of possible output. I will argue that this is not necessarily the case.

In either case, when we design an application, we need to consider the potential users' experience level. Perhaps it would be better to call it involvement level because the level of expertise will closely follow the level of use time for a new application. It is a challenge to "nd a balance for supporting beginners, intermediates and experts in the same application. !e goal is to "rapidly and painlessly get beginners into intermediacy, to avoid putting obstacles in the way of those intermediates who want to become experts, and most of all, to keep perpetual intermediates happy as they stay %rmly in the middle of the skill spectrum." [Cooper et al. 2007]

As mentioned, it is critical that the product adequately re&ects the user's mental model so that a new user can grasp the concepts and scope quickly, or, he will abandon the application. If the beginner gets enough support and "nds using the application rewarding, he will soon advance to the intermediate level.

!e majority of users will naturally be intermediates since they are using the application frequently. !erefore, the main focus should be to design for the middle experienced level. To be an expert involves heavy usage and only a small percentage of the user base will reach this level. However, a well-designed application takes into account and supports these users' needs as far as possible without sacri"cing the focus on the intermediate users.

So$ware companies are running the risk of being too in&uenced by their expert users. !e users with the highest involvement are naturally good at giving feedback about the products. !e expert users also have a disproportional in&uence on reviews and forum discussions. !is is probably one of the reasons behind the idea that applications need to have a certain level of complexity. A way to get around this would be to rework the messaging for the applications and use di%erent sales and marketing channels for reaching new users.

I like to make a comparison to traditional instruments and will argue that music so$ware should have similar qualities of interaction. Take a piano for instance. !e interaction is based on an idiom that has to be learned, yet most people quickly

26

understand how to interact with the instrument. A beginner can start using the piano immediately but the subtleties of the possible expression makes it possible to practice a lifetime and still have things to learn (obviously). !e connection to music so$ware is that the fundamental concepts for so$ware-based music production should be easy to understand but still have unlimited creative possibilities.

"A bad design forces the user to deal with complexities that belong to the wrong domain." [Flores and Winograd 1987]

Making music should be about developing skills and eventually becoming an expert at the creative and expressive aspects, not about learning complex technical concepts that are outside the scope. !is means the question about what the experts really need has to be asked again.

2.7 Chapter SummaryAn interaction design perspective is the best approach for dealing with the complexity of understanding users and translate the knowledge into product design. Companies are bad at designing good interactions because they lack proper knowledge about users and have no structured design process for using qualitative user research as a foundation for product design.

!e complex design process must be managed by people with speci"c design skills. Interviews and observations are some of the most powerful techniques for understanding current and potential users. Interviews with stakeholders and other experts within the domain are also great for learning more about users understanding the domain.

Making sure that the represented model of the so$ware is closely matching the new users' mental model is a key aspect for successful interaction design. Designers should not be limited to the constraints of using hardware metaphors, but instead try to "nd suitable idioms that users can quickly learn. With experience level, the main focus should be to design for intermediate users while making sure beginners can become intermediates. Expert users should also be supported as long as it is not interfering with the focus on intermediates, since experts will only constitute a small percentage of the user base.

27

3 Method!is project is mainly carried out as the research part of the goal directed design process described in the theory chapter. !e project aim is to understand the domain and users in Propellerhead's context. !e information has mainly been gathered through interviews, but I have also done extensive domain research through readings and product audits.

In this chapter I will describe the performed research activities in more detail. To make the connection between interviews and conclusions more clear, I also will mention some of the valuable outcomes from each interview before I present the more general results in the next chapter. See the appendix for more detailed summaries of the interviews.

3.1 Domain ResearchEven before starting this project, I had extensive knowledge about the music so$ware "eld. For many years I have been using products from Propellerhead and other companies, both as a hobby and through my work as a professional sound engineer. Being at Propellerhead was great for learning more about how these applications are designed and built. It was also an excellent opportunity for trying and learning more about additional applications available in the market. !e domain research was done in a quite unstructured manner, in the sense that I was reading and testing as much as I could. However, I still think this was an ideal approach for getting a good understanding of the domain.

I have done detailed audits of the following applications in the digital audio workstation (DAW) category:

• Ableton Live 8• Apple Logic Studio 9• Apple GarageBand 5• Avid Pro Tools 8• PreSonus Studio One 1.5• Propellerhead Reason 4 and Record 1.0• Steinberg Cubase 5

!e audits were done by examinations of the interfaces and general use of the applications. I looked at:

28

• What features are available?• How are the features structured?• What features are unique to the application?• How are common features designed?• What type of support is provided?• How is the application di%erent from other applications? • How it the application described on the product pages? • What could the typical user could be?

Apart from the DAWs, I tested a number of smaller applications, including plugins, web-based tools and iPhone applications. I also looked at various hardware solutions for controlling music so$ware, like standard MIDI controllers, the monome, the Lemur, and the Maschine.

Apart from product audits, the domain research was mainly carried out by frequent monitoring of the most relevant online resources for music technology. !e internet is, like in many other "elds, the main source for detailed presentations, reviews, and discussions about products. Apart from the companies' own websites, the currently relevant online resources I have been reading include:

• Ableton Forum http://forum.ableton.com/• Create Digital Music http://createdigitalmusic.com/• Harmony Central http://www.harmonycentral.com/• MusicRadar http://www.musicradar.com/• Palm Sounds http://the-palm-sound.blogspot.com/

Printed magazines are still relevant for music technology news and product reviews, even though the number of total readers is declining. Another trend is that the number of magazines for professionals is declining and instead new titles geared towards beginners and hobby musicians are popping up. Propellerhead subscribes to a number of industry magazines and the titles I have been reading frequently include:

• Computer Music http://www.musicradar.com/computermusic• Electronic Musician http://emusician.com/• Future Music http://www.musicradar.com/futuremusic• Musikermagasinet (Swedish) http://www.musikermagasinet.com/• Sound On Sound http://www.soundonsound.com/

29

• Studio (Swedish) http://studio.idg.se/

Apart from the interviews with stakeholders and experts described below, I have been discussing the topics covered in this report with a number of industry experts and other people I have met.

3.2 Company ResearchIn addition to interviews with stakeholders and other Propellerhead employees, I have studied internal documentation about Propellerhead and the company's processes. !e available material includes:

• Brand strategy• Business plans• Company presentations• Feature speci"cations• Internal value propositions• Job position descriptions• Industry metrics• Market intelligence• Marketing metrics• Product roadmaps• Support reviews• Usability tests• User pro"les• User surveys

3.3 Stakeholder InterviewsApart from recurring informal discussions with the di%erent people at Propellerhead, I also interviewed the most relevant sta% members. !e overall scope was to discover how Propellerhead's current development process works, how the stakeholders view the design process, what they know about users, and if they share the same product visions.

All interviews were done at the Propellerhead headquarters and lasted about an hour each. !e conversations were audio recorded, transcribed, translated from Swedish to English, "ltered and analyzed. See the appendix for English summaries of the interview transcriptions.

30

!e stakeholder interviews went very well and the outcomes were of great value to the project. It was much work to transcribe the recordings and summarize the outcomes though. It is probably more e%ective to have two persons interviewing, so that one can take detailed notes directly instead of going thorough the process of transcribing and "ltering the material. Here are brief descriptions of the respective interviewee and the topics we focused on.

3.3.1 Ernst, CEOErnst is one of Propellerhead's three founders as well as the current CEO and a member of the board. He is head of business and design strategy and obviously a key person for pointing out directions of future product development. Since Ernst was also supervising this project, we spent much time discussing related topics. !e interview focused on topics including:

• To what extent is making it easier for beginners a priority for the company?• What information are product decisions mainly based on?• What are the future goals of the company?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Supporting beginners is a low priority because how the business works and this forces companies to focus mainly on features

• !e main part of Propellerhead’s design work is based on gut feeling rather than proper research

• Shorter lead times is the most important aspect to improve in the development process

3.3.2 Marcus, CTOMarcus is one of Propellehead's three founders as well as the current CTO and a member of the board. Marcus is head of technology and supports Ernst in the overall design and strategy work. !e interview focused on topics including:

• Where do you get information and inspiration for product design?• What are the goals and visions for the current products?• How would you like to improve the development process?

Some valuable outcomes:

31

• Propellerhead has traditionally designed products that the employees want to use themselves

• Products compete with the number of features they have• Shortening the time from product design to "nish is important to improve the

development process

3.3.3 Mats, Product ManagerMats is the product manager for Reason. !e interview focused on topics including:

• How do you collect knowledge for product decisions?• What is the most important thing to improve in Reason?• How would you like to improve the development process?

Some valuable outcomes:

• New users are discouraged by the complexity of the interface• Getting better at helping new users is the most important area to improve• Faster iterations is the most important aspect to improving in development

process

3.3.4 Ludvig, Product ManagerLudvig is the product manager for Record. !e interview focused on topics including:

• What is the role of a product manager?• How would you like to improve the development process?• What are the important factors for designing good so$ware?

Some valuable outcomes:

• !e users' engagement is expressed through the time and money they spend on making music

• It seems impossible to have contact with users before you release the "rst version of a program because you cannot get any concrete feedback

• Ludvig reads Propellerhead’s forums, other internet resources and magazines to stay in contact with potential users

3.3.5 Tim, Marketing DirectorTim is director of marketing and sales. !e interview focused on topics including:

32

• What are you trying to communicate as a brand?• What can Propellerhead do to lower the barriers for potential users?• What are the major trends for the future of the music so$ware?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Propellerhead should help creators handle technology and be able to focus on music

• !e industry is typically about listing features instead of other qualities• !e current type of so$ware is mature so there is a great need to look at new

products and business models

3.3.6 Anders, Interaction DesignerAnders is mainly writing so$ware speci"cations, but he is also managing Propellerhead's user testing since he is considered the company's usability expert. Since Anders wrote his thesis in the same area as I, he has been a great resource for discussing related topics and ideas for improvements. !e interview focused on topics including:

• How does Propellerhead's design process work?• How would you like to improve the design process?• Who should be responsible for user research?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Propellerhead is a company that builds products that Propellerhead wants• Propellerhead has very little contact with potential users• Propellerhead needs to change as a company and get better at extracting the

right information from user research

3.3.7 Kristoffer, Content ManagerKristo%er is managing content for the applications. !e interview focused on topics including:

• How do you work with content for the programs?• Where would you place Reason on the musical map?• What is the overall strategy for the sounds in Reason?

Some valuable outcomes:

33

• People consider Reason to be a toy mainly due to the way the graphical interface looks

• Having great sounds is likely increasing the number of people viewing Reason as a serious tool for music making

• Reason is a good if you are a bit nerdy and want to sit and patch cables

3.3.8 Anders, Advertising ConsultantBeside the Propellerhead sta% members, I also interviewed Anders who is working at an advertising agency frequently used by Propellerhead. We talked about how his agency has been marketing the products and what he thinks could be improved in terms of reaching new user groups. !e main outcome is that the music so$ware industry is very conservative and slow in adopting new ways of communicating products.

3.4 Subject Matter Expert InterviewsTo learn more about the domain I did formal interviews with a couple of subject matter experts (SME). !e overall scope was to "nd out more about the typical processes for making music, their views on available products, barriers for beginners, the situation for various user types, etcetera.

Compared to stakeholders, it is obviously trickier to identify and meet with relevant SMEs. My approach for "nding experts was to ask around in my network and at Propellerhead for suggestions and then try to set up times to meet. Since I was especially interested in the question about why there are so few female music makers, I did some online research and found people involved with projects aimed at supporting girls.

For improved results, it would probably have been good to talk to some more experts, but concerning the challenges of "nding suitable experts and arranging a time for meeting them, I think the outcome was good in this context. A suggested approach for "nding more experts would be to ask each expert for additional recommendations.

All interviews lasted about an hour and were audio recorded, except for the telephone interviews where I took notes directly. !e recordings were then transcribed, translated from Swedish to English, "ltered and analyzed. See the

34

appendix for a summary of the outcomes of each interview. Here are brief descriptions of the respective interviewee and the topics we focused on.

3.4.1 Andrea, TeacherAndrea is about 35 years old and teaches music so$ware at one of the leading music production schools in Sweden. He is a classically trained wind player and has been working with music production for many years. I "rst met Andrea when he was visiting Propellerhead, but the interview was done later at the school's premises in Stockholm. !e interview focused on topics including:

• How long does it take to learn music so$ware?• What type of users take your courses and why?• What makes students happy or frustrated?

Some valuable outcomes:

• People who are accustomed to using computers tend to understand music so$ware quickly but they have a lot to learn about the concepts of music production

• Most people want to focus more on creating instead of trying to understand technology and we help them with that focus

• People have a dream to do everything themselves but that is usually what kills their creativity because it takes signi"cant time and very few can actually do it

3.4.2 Eric, Entrepreneur and ArtistEric is about 30 years old and one of the cofounders of SoundCloud.com which is one of the leading internet platforms for music sharing. He has also been making electronic music for over ten years and released his "rst album in 2003. Currently, he is mainly using Apple Logic and Ableton Live for his productions. I "rst met Eric when he was a student at KTH. !e interview was done at a cafe close to the SoundCloud o#ce in Berlin and focused on topics including:

• Why do you make music?• What do you think about the available music applications?• How could music so$ware be improved?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Eric makes music because it is great fun

35

• Sharing the music with others is an important part of the process• Eric has ideas for a new type of music application, a paradigm shi$

3.4.3 Henrik and Peder, Producers and ArtistsHenrik and Peder are both around 30 years old and work together as professional music producers. !ey produce di%erent artists as well as make their own music under various aliases. !ey mainly use Apple Logic and Ableton Live for their productions. I was introduced to them by one of my friends, and the interview was done at their studio in Stockholm. !e interview focused on topics including:

• What is the di%erence between being a producer and a creator?• What do you think about the available music applications?• What is the most challenging part of making music?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Most applications are very big and take a lot of time to learn• It feels like the development has stagnated and you do not see very many

interesting new products.• For people who want to get started, it is important to get fast results

3.4.4 Lisen, ArtistLisen is about 35 years old and one of the members of the female electronica oriented group Midaircondo. She is a classically trained saxophone player and used to play a lot of improvisational music. !e band is mainly using Apple Logic together with various hardware devices like loop pedals and e%ects. I was recommended to contact Lisen by Åsa (see below) and the interview was done via telephone since Lisen lives in Gothenburg. We focused on topics including:

• How did you get started with electronic music?• What were the main barriers when you started using technology?• How can you learn about music making?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Midaircondo did not know anything about technology when they started but say it was great to be three people in the group and be able to support each other in learning

36

• !e group has been getting much attention because they are women making electronic music

• Companies that make new products want to put in as many features as possible which is bad because you get a lot more than needed

3.4.5 Karin, Runs an Organization for Female MusiciansKarin is about 25 years old and works with Playsister, a music association supporting girls who want to play music with rehearsal rooms and training. She has been playing electric bass for about "ve years and studied at a special music school for girls. I heard about Playsister and contacted Karin via email. !e interview was done via telephone since she lives in Uppsala. We focused on topics including:

• Why is it harder for girls to get started with music?• What are the technological barriers?• How can we get more girls involved in music making?

Some valuable outcomes:

• Women have always been pushed aside in the music world so we want to make it easier for them instead of telling them that they do not have enough knowledge

• Having fun is the main motive for people involved in music, but how people want to express their musical interest is very individual.

• Karin believes that changing the attitudes is the key to get more women interested in music together with making it easier to "nd people to collaborate with

3.4.6 Åsa, Runs an Organization for Female MusiciansÅsa is about 30 years old and runs Popkollo, a music camp only for girls. I had heard about Popkollo and contacted Åsa via email. !e interview was done via telephone since Åsa lives in Hultsfred. We focused on topics including:

• What is important for supporting girls who want to make music?• What are the barriers for women?• How is the social context important?

Some valuable outcomes:

37

• It is the lack of social context that makes it very hard for women who want to make music

• Apple has succeeded in making the Macbook socially accepted so many girls get one and feel proud about it

• !e product identity must be built on more than just technology, it needs social communication

3.4.7 Canceled InterviewsTwo other expert interviews were planned but did not happen, even though both people promised to do them. !is further indicates the challenges when using interviews as a research technique in time limited projects. !e two people are:

• Lina is about 30 years old and works with supporting Swedish bands using a well-known web service

• Lise is about 50 years old and works as teacher and director of a music education program only for girls

3.5 User InterviewsLearning more about users is central to this project and the interviews with potential users are obviously essential. As with SMEs, it is o$en a challenge to map out what type of users to look for and how to "nd them. Focus was to talk with beginners and potential users since we already knew a lot about the current users. As a starting point for recruitment, I used the following fairly open characteristics for all the interviewees:

• Young adults: Men and women in the ages between 20 to 30 years• Music freaks: A strong general interest in music• Wannabes: A clear ambition to create computer-based music• Beginners: No or little experience of music making• Digital natives: General computer experience• Inexperienced: No or little conceptual understanding of traditional music

production• Non-nerds: No special interest in technology• Untrained: No special knowledge in music theory and instrument practice

With the same approach as for the SMEs, it was possible to recruit enough people by simply asking around for suggestions. !e suggested people were "rst questioned

38

via telephone so I could verify that each person "t the description before I did a more formal interview.

!e overall scope was to "nd out more about why they want to make music (motivation), what they expect (preconceptions), what the problems for getting started are (barriers), how they can learn more (support), how they want the tools to be (priorities), and why there are so few female users (prejudice).

Before the interviews, I formulated context speci"c questions to use as a starting point. Here are typical examples:

• Why do you want to make music?• What are the goals of making music?• What type of music do you want to make?• What do you know about music making?• How do you imagine music making works?• What are the main barriers for making music?• How would you prefer to learn about music making?• Is it important to get feedback on what you create?• What part of music making is the most fun?• What do you need to get started?• Where do you "nd information about music gear?• How would you choose what gear to use?• What music applications do you know about?• What are the most important aspects of an application?• What is your impression of di%erent music so$ware?

With some users, we had time to also try Reason so I could observe and ask questions. We also did walk throughs of Propellerhead's and some competing companies’ websites.

All interviews lasted about one to two hours. !ey were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed. Instead of the outcomes from each interview, I have summarized the general outcomes under each aspect (motivation, preconceptions, barriers, learning, priorities and females users) in the appendix. Here are brief descriptions of the users I interviewed and some of the valuable outcomes from each interview.

39

3.5.1 AdelineAdeline (24) is a deejay who is also making her own dance music together with a female friend. I interviewed her via telephone since she did not have time to meet in person. She is a beginner in using Apple Logic, but she did not see any special di#culties in being a woman in the dance music scene. She had taken a course in deejaying and had a boyfriend who was making music which inspired her to get started.

Some valuable outcomes:

• If you are interested in music making you have to get over the technical barrier• Adeline had a boyfriend who was making music which made her realize it was

something she could do as well• She gets more attention since there are not many women making music and

deejaying

3.5.2 AnnaAnna (27) started making her own drum and bass music about ten years ago but eventually stopped. Now she aspires to really learn how to make dance music with her laptop. She has been trying out Reason but says she has a lot to learn before she is able to control the process. I interviewed her at Propellerhead's o#ce and had time to observe and question her about using Reason.

Some valuable outcomes:

• !e technical barrier is what has been keeping Anna away from music making• Now she is in a relationship with a guy who makes music which is great for

getting contacts and support• !e most fun is when she has created a track, plays it for someone and gets

positive feedback

3.5.3 AugustAugust (22) started out writing and recording his guitar-based pop songs. Now he wants to learn how to make computer-based electronic music and puts signi"cant e%ort into it. He is a beginner in using Apple Logic and experiments with the features without really knowing how things work. I interviewed him at Propellerhead's o#ce and also observed him making music at home.

40

Some valuable outcomes:

• August uses Logic and tries things but does not understand how the e%ects and instruments really work

• He payed a friend for giving a course in audio technology so he could learn what a compressor, and other components, do

• He spends most of his time making music because he loves doing it and his goal is to get his music released by a label, even though he does not know if he will be able to make any money from it

3.5.4 CamillaCamilla (22) is very interested in electronic music and wants to start making her own music as a hobby, but she has problems getting started. I interviewed her at Propellerhead's o#ce and we also had time to do a walk through of Propellerhead's website and try Reason.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Camilla wants to produce music but it is hard to get started because it takes a lot of time to learn the applications

• She has to learn everything by herself which seems very hard since she is not a technical person

• Not knowing what results you will get for the time investment keeps you from getting started

3.5.5 EmelieEmelie (20) is playing electric bass in a band but wants to learn how to record her own music with a computer. She has been observing a couple of recording sessions with bands and eventually she wants to work with music production in a professional studio. I interviewed her at Propellerhead's o#ce and we had time to do walk throughs of di%erent so$ware makers' websites and try Reason.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Emilie does not like going to music stores because she feels afraid of seeming stupid

41

• Women care more than men about what other people think, so they are more afraid of asking in music stores

• !e most important quality of any product is that it is easy to understand and easy to use

3.5.6 FredrikaFredrika (30) has worked professionally with TV editing and now wants to learn how to make electronic music using GarageBand and Reason. She has taken a one week course but still has a hard time getting things to work in Reason. I interviewed her twice at Propellerhead's o#ce so we had time to do walk throughs of di%erent so$ware makers' websites and try Reason.

Some valuable outcomes:

• It takes an incredibly long time to learn music production and it o$en gets frustrating

• Fredrika has learned most of the things she knows by herself, but sometimes she talks to other producers and learns new things from them

• !e most important quality for an application is that it is simple to use and has a user-friendly interface

3.5.7 HelenaHelena (23) wants to make music with her computer since she has no experience with playing traditional instruments. She has been trying Reason a couple of times but always felt that it was too complicated to really get started. I interviewed her in her home, close to Propellerhead's o#ce.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Helena wants to make music as a way to express herself and she gets very impressed by other people who make music

• Girls are generally reluctant to commit to something that takes a lot of time to learn

• She tried Reason once but did not understand how to use it since there are too many functions and the terminology is hard to understand

42

3.5.8 JoelJoel (23) is studying to become a full-time actor and wants to make his own music to be able to express further his creativity. I interviewed him via telephone since he lived outside of Stockholm.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Joel wants to make music mainly because it is fun, but also to see if he can create the type of music he is looking for as a listener

• He wants to have music making as a relaxing hobby in the future• He would need a program that lets him learn gradually and someone who can

give him advice and support

3.5.9 LisenLisen (25) is interested in having music as a hobby and wants to start by mixing tracks and eventually take a step further and produce her own music. I interviewed her at the university where she studies.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Having too high expectations on yourself keeps you from getting started• Not knowing what gear to get and how to use it is also an important barrier• Guys are better at digging deep into something and more willing to spend time

learning

3.5.10 MaiaMaia (29) is an established artist but she claims she is not an expert when it comes to recording and producing her music. She works hard to learn more about music technology to be even more independent in her music making. She is recording her songs in Pro Tools and I interviewed her via telephone since she lives outside Stockholm.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Maia started recording her own tracks because she had a friend who did it which inspired her

• She still thinks it is complicated to understand the application and she does not really know what she is doing most of the time

• For girls, the cultural barrier is bigger than the actual technical barriers

43

3.5.11 NilsNils (24) is making electronic dance music in Logic and is gradually getting better at understanding the technology and processes behind it. I interviewed Nils at a cafe in Berlin where he lived temporarily.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Nils wants to get better at handling the technology in order to get closer to the sound he wants to have

• Most people that make electronic music are also very interested in technology• People want to use professional tools even though they are beginners

3.5.12 NovaNova (24) is a singer and songwriter who has recorded and produced a couple of her songs with GarageBand. Her brother is an established producer and supports her in learning the technology. She wants to learn more to be independent when making music. I interviewed her at Propellerhead's o#ce.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Nova thinks the environment is an important reason why she makes music• She learned to play music in school and has two brothers that are making

music and are interested in technology• She does not have any concrete goals, except that she wants to make a song that

she thinks is really good, the perfect song

3.5.13 PaulaPaula (27) has been singing in a couple of pop bands but is passionate about electronic music so she wants to try making music with her computer and see what the result can be. I interviewed Paula at the university.

Some valuable outcomes:

• Paula wants to make the music she wants to listen to herself and express her creativity

• It is a great kick just to sit at home and listen to something you have created which sounds good

• !e technical side is the hardest and it feels ridiculous to have a lot of gear that you cannot use because it is too complicated

44

3.6 User TestingWhile working at Propellerhead, I also got the chance to support Anders in doing user testing with Record. We visited six di%erent users and observed them and asked them questions while they were trying the new application. !is was one of the "nal steps for "nishing Record and the aim was to see if there were any critical areas in the user interface that needed to be improved before releasing the product. All the users were relatively experienced, but it was a valuable experience to try the testing technique in a real world scenario and see what parts of the application the experienced users found problematic.

3.7 Chapter Summary!e method employed in this report is mainly based on interviews with stakeholders, subject matter experts and users. Most interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed and analyzed. Company research has also been done through close examination of the available internal documentation, such as business plans, brand strategy and product roadmaps. Domain research has also been done through product audits, readings and informal discussions with people working with music so$ware or in related areas.

45

4 ResultsIn this chapter I summarize the results from the interviews and the complementary research. !e aim is to give an overview of the current situation for music so$ware companies in general and Propellerhead in particular, as well as to highlight the most valuable insights about potential users.

4.1 Music Software Today!e conclusions about the music so$ware industry are mainly drawn from the stakeholder interviews and domain research and each [name] refers to the respective interviewee. See the appendix for a summary of each stakeholder interview.

4.1.1 Typical Users!e music so$ware industry has its roots in the music technology industry which used to make products mainly for professional music studios. To be able to work in a music studio, you had to have technical or musical expertise, and the equipment was generally not a%ordable for amateurs. With the introduction of digital technology, prices started to decrease and today there are no longer any real economic barriers for people who want to record and produce music. Unfortunately, the music so$ware companies are trapped in a mindset where professionals are the primary user group. !e products are generally promoted as professional tools, even though only a small percentage actually make any money from using them. What is true, though, is that the products still require extensive technical knowledge, so it is better to call the users experts rather than professionals.

!e typical Reason user is a 35 year old man with relatively high technical knowledge. [Ernst] describes them as post teens not afraid of technology. !e same description goes for most of the Propellerhead employees and [Marcus] concludes that “we usually design products that we want ourselves” and “so!ware companies are generally very bad at user research” so there is little understanding of user types that are di%erent then the current majority. Most music applications have less than 3% female users and [Tim] concludes that women will never feel comfortable in music stores and Propellerhead provides little to no assistance in supporting them.

46

Obviously there is a great opportunity to grow the user base by increasing the number of female users.

4.1.2 Similar Products!e market for music so$ware is becoming increasingly competitive with more products and lower prices. Companies "ght to grow their user bases by adding new advanced features instead of improving the products in other ways. [Ernst] con"rms that the business works in a way which forces companies to focus on new features instead of improved interaction, and better support for new user types remains a low priority for the established companies. At the same time, [Marcus] concludes that the industry has reached a mature point where the necessary so$ware technology is "nally in place and the computers are powerful enough to handle it. Not only has the technology improved a lot over the last years, but also the products are getting cheaper and in that sense more accessible. However, there has been very little focus on improving the usability, and the products are far from mature in terms of consumer accessibility.

A$er a closer look at the available products, most Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) have pretty much the same features and very similar interface designs. !ey are based on the same paradigm, designed for the same target group and the amount of conceptual variety is surprisingly low. !e products are also presented in a similar way with a focus on features and technical speci"cations, which makes it hard for new users to understand the di%erences and choose a product that "ts their needs. Esoteric qualities like bit depths and internal mix busses are given more attention than the application’s ability to support the creative aspects of music making. !e only real exception is GarageBand which seems to be the only DAW that delivers on the promise to be made for people who are less interested in technology and more interested in music.

4.1.3 Compared to PhotographyIn some aspects, one can draw parallels between music making and photography. !ere was a time when cameras were expensive, complicated and viewed as strictly professional tools. Eventually they became cheaper and more people picked up photography as a hobby. Today, digital cameras have totally revolutionized the world of photography. !ere is still a market for professional photographers and the manufacturers continue to make cameras for expert users, but the most important customers are the millions of people buying cameras for hobby or home use. !e

47

range of products spans from the simplest mobile phone camera up to the most advanced systems. People are taking more pictures and more users are interested in improving their results by getting better cameras. !erefore, the segment of semiprofessional cameras with improved support functions for non-expert users is one of the strongest growing and most pro"table markets.

Not only have cameras become very cheap and easy to use, and they literally are found everywhere, but the possibility to share photos on the internet has drastically changed the context of taking pictures. In a similar way, I think music making is transforming into a mainstream hobby. !e comparison might be simpli"ed, but it is a fact that there is no real middle ground for music tools. If you want to make music, you have to be very serious about it and hobbyists are using the same so$ware tools as professional sound engineers. !e process of making music might be more complex than taking a photo, thus making it less straightforward to design better tools, but I think there will be a change in how we view musical content which will open up for new tools. One of the problems is that there is too much focus on creating "nished tracks with high quality. If we can create a middle ground for musical content, there will be a middle ground for musical products.

4.1.4 Sales and MarketingMusic so$ware is generally sold through specialized music stores. To get better margins, so$ware companies are trying to increase the amount of sales through their own websites. It is obviously convenient for people to be able to try and buy so$ware online, but at the same time it gets harder for customers to choose what gear to buy without the help they can get in a specialized music store. Marketing of music so$ware is o$en focused on listing product features or highlighting professional users who embrace the product. Most of the advertising is placed in established industry media and not very much in other contexts. Compare again to cameras that are marketed in all types of channels, for instance lifestyle magazines, and then with a focus on the value of taking pictures and not so much about the speci"cations of the cameras.

Apple has radically changed the way its music applications are communicated and sold by integrating them with the rest of their product line. GarageBand comes with every new Apple computer as a part of the iLife suite [Apple 2010]. !ere is a direct link to the Music & Audio category in Apple's online store which means customers can "nd music applications and add ons without explicitly looking for them in a

48

music store. Apple recently said that GarageBand has over "ve million users [Jobs 2010], which indicates the growth potential for this integrated approach. For other companies though, it remains a challenge to get their message out to new users and drive tra#c to their sites.

Propellerhead is de"nitely moving in the right direction with how they present products and what type of users they gear the messaging for. [Tim] believes it is possible to reach additional market segments with new messaging in additional channels.

4.1.5 The Role of the Internet!e internet plays an important role, not only for making information available about products and methods for music making to new target groups, but also for changing the role of music in more general terms. !e ways we distribute and consume music have drastically changed, which in turn alters the relationship between the consumer and the creator. !e view on music as a commercial product is also changed which in turn a%ects the way people look at music making as a profession. !e internet is lowering the barriers for sharing music, getting feedback on music, having discussions about music, and learning about music making. !is will inevitably help lower the overall barriers for making music and drive the change towards mass-market music making. !is creative revolution will force us to democratize the tools. !e question is whether it will be the established companies making this change or if new players will be the ones realizing this opportunity.

4.2 Propellerhead's Development Process!e conclusions about Propellerhead's development process are mainly drawn from the stakeholder interviews, reading internal documentation and being at the company for almost a year. See the appendix for a summary of each stakeholder interview.

Propellerhead has a highly-regarded brand within the music so$ware industry, an excellent technology platform and great resources for developing world class music so$ware. !e current applications are technically well-performing and have strong identities which is an important part of their success. In essence, the company is in a strong position to design new products and acquire new users that are discouraged by the technical complexities in other current product o%erings. I studied Propellerhead's current design and implementation process to understand better

49

why the products turn out the way they do, how the process can be improved and what it would take to change the direction of the product development.

Propellerhead currently strives towards a linear and controlled process where projects are started with the writing of detailed speci"cations for the features to implement. Every new release has a special theme for what it is supposed to achieve. !e product management team comes up with a set of features for realizing this theme. When the team has decided on the main features, they are broken down into milestones representing partial stages of the targeted product. Each feature is worked out in detail, and the technical approach is described together with the user interface elements using poster techniques. !e release cycles are relatively long, with typically more than a year between the major releases.

Propellerhead is very good at implementing high quality music so$ware and all the interviewed stakeholders agree that the company goal is to make products that let creators focus on making great music. However, there are three main problem areas preventing the company from e%ectively reaching this goal:

• !e amount of user research is inadequate and there is too little attention to whether a suggested feature will satisfy the targeted user group. !e design work is done by few people without su#cient research, evaluation and testing with potential users. Some of the stakeholders think there is a need for more user research while some think the company knows enough to make great products.

• !ere is no prototyping and recurrent user testing throughout the development process for making sure features are implemented in ways that work well for the users. One reason is that there is a lack of tools for making prototypes for testing purposes. Propellerhead only uses posters to describe the details of the features to be implemented.

• It is very hard to estimate the time for "nishing a set of features and therefore hard to know what will actually end up in a planned release. !e long release cycles also make it di#cult to react to new realizations or situational changes. All the stakeholders agree shorter release cycles would be a vital improvement to the design process.

50

4.2.1 User ResearchAnders is currently doing all the user testing and is mainly responsible for the overall user research. He con"rms Propellerhead has very little contact with potential users. !e company also receives feedback from existing users through their own forum, customer support and occasional surveys. [Ludvig]: "I read our forums, other internet resources, and magazines to stay in contact with potential users."

!ere is no structured process for translating user research into product design. [Ludvig]: "It seems impossible to have contact with users before you release the "rst version of a program because you cannot get any concrete feedback." [Tim]: "Propellerhead lacks the time and resources to do proper customer evaluations."

!e stakeholders have bad previous experiences from asking users what they want since it tends to lead to long feature lists [Ernst]. !erefore, they are quite skeptical about the value of user research and the main part of the design work is based on gut feeling. [Ernst] thinks you can feel that some (competing) products are based on research and refers to his belief that great products are based on something beyond research and process.

Another problem is that the people designing the products are not involved in the user research. Even though they get reports from Anders, they are likely missing the emphatic understanding of users that is obtained from spending time with them. Working in a closed environment makes it very hard to stay in tune with the users' goals and limitations. Working intensively with a product tend to turn people into experts which makes it even harder to sympathize with the people who have problems understanding the product. !is will also make it harder for the person representing the users to argue for this case in product discussions.

Propellerhead also tends to use design as a visual faceli! on the implementation model [Cooper et al. 2007]. !e only designers involved are the people creating the graphical elements for the user interfaces. !ey have no direct contact with users and are not involved in product decisions.

4.3 Propellerhead’s Products!e main qualities of Propellerhead's products are stability, technical performance and a special identity. !eir identity clearly di%erentiates them from competitors'

51

products and Propellerhead believe this is an important reason why they are popular among certain users. Music tools need to have more dimensions than technical features and good usability which is something about which Propellerhead is highly aware. However, the products are sometimes seen as having relatively low credibility as professional tools and this is o$en blamed on the look of the graphical user interface.

!e vision for Propellerhead's products is to make people more creative and make more music. According to [Ernst], users claim to make more music when they switch to Reason from other applications. It is challenging to understand what qualities in the applications make users more productive though. [Ludvig] says that the level of engagement (time and money spent on music making), rather than the actual results, is what makes a typical user.

[Marcus] con"rms that Reason is designed for people who are serious about music making. It is not for beginners and you cannot be afraid of technology. [Mats] con"rms that new users are o$en discouraged by the complexity of Reason's interface. Reason and practically all other music so$ware assume people are technology literate, thereby excluding the vast majority of people who are interested in music, but lack both knowledge and interest regarding technological aspects. [Mats]: "You have to be interested in technology to be a Reason user." [Ludvig] also con"rms people might get frightened when they see the big mixer in Record and that it might be tricky to understand some features in the application.

[Anders] thinks Reason is more of an instrument than a complete production tool and that it used to be simple but not anymore. It is not for beginners and will be hard to use for people without experience in patching cables in traditional music studios.

[Ernst] concludes they need to create a completely new product in order to change the priorities for the design. [Marcus] agrees and mentions the possibility that the hardware metaphor might not always be used, even though "it is a comfortable building block in communicating how things work." [Anders] suggests that they should use their current technical knowledge and create a new program based on a new metaphor, but if they are supposed to make programs that are di%erent, they need to start doing more research earlier in the process. Propellerhead should perhaps even let new people make the product decisions.

52

[Tim]: "It is more about doing a limited product right than just adding all the possible features." [Ludvig] thinks adding more help and tutorials is a way to make the programs easier to understand though. [Marcus] con"rms usability is the next main goal and it will become more important with user research.

4.4 User Insights!e conclusions about users are mainly drawn from the interviews with (potential) users and experts. !e interviews were open and I "ltered the material by grouping answers and comments into di%erent areas in order to map out trends by looking for the most frequent answers. Here I will summarize the most clear insights about user motivations and barriers. See the appendix for a summary of each expert interview and a summary of the insights from the user interviews grouped into areas.

4.4.1 Why People Make Music!e in&uence of music as a cultural expression and art form can hardly be overestimated, but the question about what makes music so meaningful cannot easily be answered. !e human relation to music obviously has dimensions that are hard to describe in concrete terms and the same is true when it comes to motivations for making music. Di%erent people have di%erent motivations but there is a common agreement that to have fun is the main reason. All the interviewees, regardless of skill level, said things to the e%ect of “I (want to) make music because it is so much fun." When asked for further explanation, users who spend much time making music o$en say they just have to do it, even though the process can o$en be painful. Making music is their call, even if it is not pro"table, and takes signi"cant time, money and e%ort.

!e idea that people are making music to make money seems highly overestimated. None of the interviewees said they see money as their main driver. It is rather considered as a potential bonus and an indication people like the music. !e focus on music making as a way to make money can probably be attributed to the fact that there is a lot of money in the music business, and wealth is heavily promoted as part of the pop star lifestyle. In this sense, music making is analogous to some sports. High pro"le athletes generally make much money, but there are millions of people doing sports even though they will never make any money from it. I believe music production has a potential to become a widespread hobby in a similar way.

53

We already consider playing instruments something anyone could do, regardless of skill level, so it is time we make computer-based tools available in a similar way.

It seems as if the majority of people who make computer-based music have a general interest in technology. A higher level of interest and understanding is probably the clearest di%erentiator between the users spending time making music and the people only expressing their intention to do so. People not especially interested in technology have to be highly motivated to overcome the learning barriers. !e highly motivated users with less interest in technology seem to think learning is a necessary if you want to express yourself musically. Today, most users are what we commonly refer to as computer literate. !ey know how to use a computer, but they have no experience with traditional music technology. !ere are many potential users who are not interested in technology, but view it as a means for musical expression, so if we create a product that demands computer literacy but less music technology literacy, we can reach a bigger audience.

In essence, people make music because:

• It is a fun activity• It is exciting to get good results• It is exciting to get good feedback

4.4.2 Motivation for BeginnersUnderstanding what motivates people who want to make music is essential when designing products to support them. What are the potential users trying to achieve? What results do they expect? What parts of the process are seen as most valuable? For inexperienced users, the following motives are o$en mentioned as reasons to start making music:

• Making music seems fun and stimulating• I listen to a lot of music and want to be even more involved• I want to make the music that I want to listen to but is currently not available• I want to have the possibility to make music independently of others• I get impressed by people making music• People making music are seen as cool• It is an exciting challenge to see if I can make good music• Making music is a way to express myself and be creative• I think it will be very stimulating if I get good results

54

• It would be a great feeling if people appreciate the music I make• I want to have the possibility to perform for an audience• More people are making music and I want to be part of that community• I am interested in deejaying as a "rst step and then I can potentially make my

own music• Making computer-based music is an alternative if you cannot play an

instrument

4.4.3 Barriers for Beginners!e motivation partly consist of preconceptions about music making which can sometimes also be discouraging. Music making is generally seen as a complex activity requiring talent and dedication if you want to succeed. It is perceived as prestigious, and beginners put high expectations on what they need to achieve to be satis"ed. !e idea is that if you say you make music, people will have high expectations on the output.

Another idea is that if you want to make good music, you need to use complicated professional tools. !e technical complexity is acknowledged as a hurdle to overcome in order to express your musical ideas. However, beginners o$en have very little real knowledge about methods for making music and the technology involved. !ey o$en have the wrong mental models and little conceptual understanding of the process. !is uncertainty makes beginners afraid of lacking musical talent or not being able to learn the technology which o$en keeps them from trying.

!ere is also a start-up cost involved. It is di#cult to choose equipment and many beginners think it is scary to ask for help in music stores. Most available programs are considered to be very complex and very big. Most of the communication around music products are also geared at people already familiar with the underlying technical concepts and beginners have a hard time understanding the terminology. People see an initial risk since they might end up spending a lot of time and money on learning, only to realize they are not able to create satisfying output. Users then tend to blame themselves for not being smart enough instead of blaming the products for not being well-designed.

In essence, the main barriers for beginners are:

• Making music is technically challenging

55

• Fear of lacking talent and not being able to learn• Hard to know how to get started

4.4.4 How to Get StartedTo learn, beginners prefer to ask people they know. It is seen as the most reliable and comfortable way to collect information. Most beginners say they are willing to spend a lot of time as long as they feel they are on the right track. !ey want to be able to sit down and try for themselves but also have someone to ask if they need support. Decisions about what products to get are o$en based on personal recommendations. Beginners think it is hard to try gear without buying it "rst. When it comes to so$ware they think it is easier to get a pirated version rather than downloading a demo of the application. !e sound is mainly seen as a property of the application and beginners do not separate the program from the sound generating units it holds.

None of the people I asked wanted to read manuals, but usually think tutorial videos are good for learning the basics and expect each so$ware maker to provide them. Any necessary information should be integrated in the program instead of in the manual. !ey think it is necessary to learn an application fully to be able to make good use of it and therefore they want tools that are good enough but not too complex. Experienced people are o$en willing to share their knowledge, but they might have too little patience which makes beginners reluctant to ask for assistance. Either way, most beginners say they would rather spend time focusing on musical parts rather than learning technology.

New users tend to say they want positive results fast to feel encouraged to keep learning. It is o$en scary to play songs for others but it is seen as very rewarding if the person likes it. It is important to feel you are on the right track and constantly improving. You want to climb a ladder with positive feedback at each step. Not understanding how to move forward or getting stuck with problems is very discouraging for beginners. Working together with others is seen as both inspiring and helpful, but it is hard to "nd people with whom to collaborate.

Among all interviewees, simplicity is mentioned as the most important product aspect in applications or any related tools for music. Beginners express the need for structure and overview so it gets easier for them to understand how di%erent parts of an application work together. Others wish for attributes that give them the possibility to experiment, play, and explore. It should be easy to get started and

56

learn gradually, and the helpfulness needs to be clearly communicated with a welcoming attitude towards new users. Some beginners also express that they would rather make music with their hands than the mouse and keyboard.

In essence, the features beginner see as most important are:

• A clearly structured user interface without too many functions• A way to get started and learn gradually• An easy way to "nd and modify di%erent good sounds

4.4.5 Why so Few Female UsersAround two percent of the Reason users are female and the percentage has not changed much in the last three years. !e fact that there are so few female users is clear evidence that the product fails to support a broader user group. !ere is no indication that women in general are less interested in music. !erefore, it is useful to examine the reasons for this low number to gain a greater understanding about potential users in general. Another argument is that females were less represented among computer users in general, but today the number is roughly equal, which indicates the possibility for similar improvement within the "eld of music production.

!e main reason seems to be that women are less interested and knowledgable about technology, which prevents them from getting involved with so$ware-based music making. Some factors commonly mentioned in interviews as likely to create barriers for women include:

• Music and technology are traditionally male areas• Lack of con"dence in their own skills• Women cannot associate themselves with technology• !ere is a lack of social context and role models for women who want to make

music• Very strong motivation is needed to get over technological barriers• Men are generally more interested and passionate about digging deep into

technological areas• Men have a stronger belief in their potential• Women are o$en reluctant to ask for help with technology, which is necessary

to learn

57

• Women are reluctant to visit music stores because they do not want to be considered stupid

• Women see it as a risk to live up to the common expectations about them being bad at understanding technology

• Women are not as motivated to focus on one area• Women are expected to be singers and dancers but not producers• It is hard to get into the music world if you are a woman• Women are less likely to think they are making something good

!e positive trends are that women are using more technology generally and we see more female role models in the music scene.

4.5 Chapter Summary!e music so$ware industry has reached maturity in the sense that the products are relatively cheap and work well on ordinary computers. However, the majority of users are still male with a special interest in technology which means there is an untapped market of other user types.

Fun is the main motivation for making music, both for beginners and experienced users. !e fact that music making is a technically complex task is the main reason many interested people have a hard time getting started. In the next chapter I will give suggestions for how Propellerhead can improve their development process and make products that are better suited for these types of users.

58

5 DiscussionIn this chapter I will make suggestions based on the "ndings presented in the previous chapter. My aim is to focus on what is relevant and potentially feasible for Propellerhead. Working at the company was ideal to better understand how real world constraints a%ect the development process. As highlighted earlier, the design process needs to consider what is possible in the actual situation and strive for the best balance between renewal and use of existing resources. !e idea is to build on top of Propellerhead's world class technology and knowledge base as a way to target new users with new great interaction designs.

5.1 The Need for Change!ere is no doubt Reason is a very successful product that has played an essential role in organically building one of the world's leading music so$ware companies. However, the past and current success of Reason only indicates that Propellerhead’s products create value for the current users. !ere is obviously no guarantee that the current development process will continue to generate products and successfully acquire new users.

My argument is that Propellerhead needs to change its design process and target new user types based on the following insights:

• !e current products are too complex for a large group of potential users• !e fact that there is currently less than two percent female users is a clear

indication of the existing barriers for some (potential) user types• !e typical attributes of the current user base indicate that this group will likely

decrease in size compared to the group of potential users• !e total number of potential users will continue to grow as music making

transforms into a mainstream hobby• Music applications are increasingly common on new platforms like the iPad

5.2 Establish a User-Centered Design ProcessPropellerhead as an organization has a limited understanding about potential user types. !e company needs to establish a user-centered design process to better understand and develop products for new target groups. A user-centered design

59

process is likely the best way to reduce risks when making new products for new user types.

“What the companies need is a repeatable, predictable, and analytical process for transforming an understanding of users into products that both meet their needs and excite their imaginations.” [Cooper et al. 2007]

However, it can be very hard to change the direction of a company as long as the current products (and practices) are pro"table. People are invested in their current ways of doing things and it is not possible to change without resistance. A change of direction will also naturally come with a certain amount of risk. [Ernst] con"rms that "we need insights about things that can make a big di$erence not just incremental improvements. "e hard thing is to talk about structural changes that have long term e$ects."

5.2.1 The People!e change has to start with the people. Establishing a new design process is a complex design task in itself which needs to be led by a person with specialized design skills. My recommendation is that Propellerhead needs to hire a chief designer who can build a design team with about six to eight representatives from the company’s di%erent departments; management, marketing and development. !e chief designer will be responsible for representing the users’ interests in product discussions, coordinating the di%erent departments and setting design goals that everyone works toward. !e chief designer is ultimately responsible for all major design decisions. Beside the chief designer, there needs to be one or two people with design skills to manage the user research and support the design work by translating knowledge about users into design ideas.

"Customers might be able to articulate problems but they are seldom good at suggesting adequate solutions to those problems. "e designer's role is to interpret users to better understand the context of use and transform that knowledge into product design. Design is a specialized skill, just like programming." [Cooper et al. 2007]

Propellerhead has looked to hire a new Director of Product Management to oversee all product development for the company. A strong experience in product research is mentioned as a required skill. I would also put extensive knowledge about user-centered research and design at the top of the list and make sure to recruit someone

60

who can drive a change toward user-centered design process. !is person will also play a key role for helping the current sta% members "nding their roles in the new process. In the long term, the company should also look at diversifying the types of people working at the company and potentially bring in people with di%erent attributes and skills to the design team. For instance, having women contributing to the product design might sound scary to some of the stakeholders, but would probably be really powerful if done right.

5.2.2 The Process!e main goals for the new design process should be to integrate users into the process by extensive user research and recurrent design veri"cation with user testing. !ere is also a need to formalize the way of transforming user knowledge into product designs. !e process will help the company focus on improved interaction design and avoid too much focus on technical features. !is will hopefully lead to more successful di%erentiation and help avoid too much conformity to industry standards and expectations.

Propellerhead also needs to shorten the development cycles and implement prototyping as a way to test and verify design ideas. !e di%erent phases of the development cycle need to be carried out in shorter iterations, so the times between ideas, prototypes, testing and implementation get shorter. !is will make new product implementation less risky and less sensitive to changing conditions since it will be possible to react faster through new iterations.

""e development of any computer-based system will have to proceed in a cycle from design to experience and back again. It is impossible to anticipate all of the relevant breakdowns (…) System development methodologies need to (...) facilitate it through techniques such as building prototypes early in the design process and applying them to situations as close as possible to those in which they will eventually be used." [Flores and Winograd 1987]

!e design team needs to do the foundational design work based on the user knowledge. !e team should work closely together in reviewing user research, generating ideas, making design decisions and following up on the implementation. It would be great to have a physical space where this team can meet and share information. An ordinary meeting room is not su#cient since it is critical to have no time restrictions and be able to keep material in the room.

61

!e people making the user research should have strong in&uence on product decisions. It is obviously not enough to conduct research with current users only and it would also be smart to let each employee participate in at least one user interview per year to increase the overall understanding and empathy for the target group. Marketing should also be based on the same knowledge base and carried out side by side with product development.

5.3 Focus on Beginners Besides ExpertsI will argue that the "eld of music making is changing in a similar way other creative markets have shi$ed focus from professional users to everyday consumers. In the previous chapter, I mentioned how cameras have become everyday items and how the way we look at photography has drastically changed by digital technology and the internet. If music making is following in a similar direction, there is great potential for Propellerhead to broaden focus and design products for the new generations of music makers, in addition to the current user types.

I believe the total number of users will grow and that the total turnover for the industry will grow with it, even though the turnover per user might go down. However, we need to understand the whole product network for music making, how the di%erent parts are linked, and on what products and services users are most willing to spend their money.

!e word beginners is a bit vague, but these are the general attributes that describe the new target group:

• Beginners or intermediates rather than experts• Amateurs rather than professionals• Creators rather than engineers• Interested in music rather than technology• Younger rather than older• Women as well as men• Focused on the outcome rather than the process• Interested in speci"c parts rather than the whole process

It is important to point out that learning about potential users is also a way to improve the products for existing users. Programs that better support the creative process, lower the cognitive load and are more intelligent, are likely to better

62

support music makers at all skill levels. To some extent, one can compare the qualities of music so$ware to traditional instruments. For instance, a piano is understandable and usable for beginners and at the same time it is a very expressive tool without an upper limit for possible expertise. One example that clearly illustrates this is EZdrummer, which was launched as a simpli"ed version of a more advanced drum program targeted at professional users. !e simpli"ed version turned out to be very popular even among professional users who like that it is easier to get fast and good results even though it had a limited feature set.

5.4 Focus on Interaction Instead of New Features!e main theme for change is to focus more on the interaction design aspects of the so$ware instead of competing with longer feature lists. !e development of music so$ware has been on a fairly straight path, centered on the idea of making traditional music gear available as so$ware. Skeptics (including myself) believe the amount of innovation in music so$ware has gone down the last few years since it is getting harder to improve the traditional concepts. !e current state of the industry calls for a paradigm shi$ toward an increased focus on better interaction design.

!e "rst step toward the democratization of music making was the democratization of computers. !e second step was developing so$ware for audio processing that runs on the available systems. !e "nal step, which is yet to come, is to make this technology available to all potential users through the design of new interactions. To do this, we need to design new interfaces that meet the desires and abilities of new potential user groups. !e great opportunity for Propellerhead lies in utilizing its powerful technical platform and expertise as a foundation for new products based on new approaches to interface design.

Today's implementation-centric interface models work poorly for non-expert users and they are far from matching the beginners' mental models related to music making. !e goal should be to build interfaces that have similar qualities to traditional instruments, meaning they are easier to learn but still useful for experts. !e way we look at traditional instruments is much more subjective than our relation to technology and the problem is that inexperienced users do not have a fact-based view of concepts like sound quality and musical structure.

63

New interface idioms for music production should let beginners climb the ladder and successively learn how to master new tools. Becoming an expert has to be more about developing the creative and musical skills rather than digging deeper into technology. We need to question whether deep technical knowledge is necessary for producing good music and start basing the interface design on the conceptual model of the desired target group. We also have to spend more time trimming the interface and learning more about how the work&ow a%ects the creative process.

Striving to acquire more female users is a good goal for driving the right type of overall change since it will demand a better understanding of the users and their context. We would have to deal with social issues and transform not only the products, but also the way we communicate them to users. It is also key to understand how di%erent users can have di%erent roles in a networked environment. !e common case today is that one user manages the whole production process. !e network will allow di%erent users to focus on di%erent parts of the process. !e best solution is probably to design di%erent products for the di%erent roles.

5.5 Design SuggestionsWithout delving into too much detail, I will present some of my ideas for how di%erent aspects of music so$ware could be improved.

5.5.1 SoundSound exploration is a good example of how current products fail to support some users. In programs like Reason, the user needs a technical understanding of how sounds are generated in order to explore and modify them. !e standard approach is to select a sound generating device and then browse categories of presets. !e presets can then be modi"ed if the user understands the operation of the device.

!e problem is that most potential users have a far more subjective understanding of sound. For them, it is more relevant to start browsing sounds based on subjective qualities instead of device types. !is approach is partly already implemented in Reason through the use of combinator devices that obscure the sound generating units into presets with a limited number of generic controls. However, there is a signi"cant opportunity to improve the process of browsing, selecting and modifying computer generated sounds based on the mental models of potential users.

64

New users see “the way it sounds” as a central quality of an application. !ey o$en judge the application based on preset sounds, and think of it more in terms of what it sounds like, rather than how it is generating sounds. If the user fails to understand the relation between how the application sounds and its sound generating devices, he is more likely to discard it as inferior sounding. It is important to give sound exploration a high priority and better tools for sound modi"cation will be critical in communicating product quality.

5.5.2 ContextWe need to acquire a better understanding of how and where the product will be used and how the context a%ects the user experience. For example, most DAWs are designed to be used with desktop computers with a keyboard, mouse, MIDI keyboard and speakers, when in reality the common setup might be a laptop with headphones. In the case of mobile use, smart features like stereo crossfade for headphones or an interface designed for computer keyboard input can be more valuable than support for hardware controllers.

Many applications are designed as complete solutions for a variety of use cases. For each speci"c use case, any of these applications will have a lot of redundant features. With better knowledge about di%erent user types, it will be possible to tailor applications for speci"c needs. Taking the example of sound creation, one application could have advanced parameters that are necessary for designing a sound. Another application could hide these parameter and instead have a better interface for browsing and tweaking the sounds. Limiting the scope of an application would help users understand what it is designed to do. It would also be clearer how it relates to other products which would make it easier to decide what application to use.

Hardware control is o$en important for music interaction. To build great interfaces, we need to design the hardware and so$ware as one interface. !is integrated approach allows for better mapping of controls and the possibility to place controls and feedback more freely. !e hardware interface will be more suitable for some controls and feedback and vice versa. Integrated solutions will also simplify consumers’ purchasing decisions and the setup of new equipment.

Another way to build more integrated products is connecting the programs to the internet. !is opens up new possibilities for collaboration and sharing and makes it more valuable for users to be part of the music-making community. Connecting

65

applications to the internet opens for new types of business models centered on applications, content, education and other services. It allows for integrated communication to support users and get their feedback. Programs could also implement data mining and behavior tracking. Users can subscribe to services instead of buying licenses, and the connections allow for content purchase and distribution within the applications.

5.5.3 InteractionMost applications are built for realtime interaction with the possibility to playing and modifying sounds with very short latencies. However, short latency is likely not an important aspect for some user types. Exploring semi-direct input, where the latency is a few seconds or more, would be an interesting way to design music interaction for users without experience in playing traditional instruments. An existing example of semi-direct input is the step sequencer, o$en used for drum programming. Not focusing on realtime interaction would simplify development, open up for more audio processing and make it easier to build so$ware for di%erent platforms.

Most applications are focused on the technological aspects of music production, rather than the process of composing and arranging songs. !ere is much potential in bringing the creative layer to the front of the application and abstracting, or automating, all the aspects not directly related to the creative process. For optimizing the interface, it is also useful to identify di%erent user types (composer or producer) and design di%erent interfaces for di%erent use cases, instead of having one solution for everyone.

5.5.4 Interface!e overall goal is to design interfaces that induce a lower cognitive load so that users can focus on the creative process and the sonic output, rather than being distracted by visual feedback. !e current metaphorical paradigm is not suitable for new users and it limits the possibilities for improvements. New interfaces must be based on new idioms for music making and designed to match the new users' mental models. !e challenge will be to design new idioms for di%erent functions in music so$ware.

!e interface should be structured a$er how users structure their work&ow, not a$er how traditional technology is structured due to the limitation of the physical

66

objects. !e presentation of di%erent functions should be related to their respective relevance and frequency of use. Controls should be grouped for optimized work&ow. Interfaces could also be made more dynamic, automatically adopt to di%erent situations, and only display relevant information. A lot more e%ort can be put into trimming the interface by adjusting the size of objects, their position and how fast each controller changes when the user interacts with it.

5.5.5 MarketingApart from designing new products, there exists untapped potential in innovating the ways of communicating and selling them. !e current marketing of music so$ware is very standardized and the messaging and channels are not e%ective for reaching new potential users. It is important to use well-known artists as role models, but at the same time be careful not to intimidate new users. Also, new users need to hear stories they can relate to, not only stories about successful users.

A user-centered design process is likely to support marketing since the qualitative approach will provide signi"cant market insight. !ere needs to be special communication designed for beginners to help users enter and learn about the music so$ware category. Di%erent types of beginners will also need di%erent types of communication and the choice of marketing channel is also dependent on demographical factors like age and sex. Targeting new user groups will help the company di%erentiate from competitors. Another way to boost marketing could be to team up with brands that are not in the same business, but share potential users. !e products could potentially be sold through new sales channels, like for instance clothing stores. In essence, there needs to be a shi$ from technology-centric marketing to more lifestyle oriented branding.

5.6 Lessons from a Successful ApproachApple has a long tradition of so$ware design based on thorough user research, so perhaps it is little surprise that the company is leading the way in designing music so$ware for new user types. Here are some reasons why I think GarageBand is di%erent from its competitors, considering the ideas presented in this chapter.

5.6.1 InformationGarageBand is distributed as part of Apple's iLife suit which is pre-installed on every new Apple computer. !is means there is no extra cost for Apple users who want to get started with the application, and the distribution is obviously di%erent

67

than traditional so$ware sales. !e fact that there is no direct buying decision, no extra cost and no installation, obviously lowers the barrier for new users wanting to get started.

!e GarageBand website [Apple 2010] is focused on answering the question "What is GarageBand?" instead of just listing features which is otherwise the common way to promote music applications. !e application is communicated as made for beginners and since it is included in the iLife suite, it is clear that Apple views it as an application for any user. !e other iLife applications are for photo, movie and web page editing, tools that also have shi$ed from professional to consumer oriented.

"If you want to learn to play an instrument, write music, or record a song, GarageBand can help — whether you’re a rookie or a rock star." [Apple 2010]

!e information on the website is mainly based on video tutorials which are clearly structured and explain all the basic concepts of GarageBand. !ere is also a dedicated page that explains how a user can open GarageBand projects in Apple's more advanced music application, Logic. A video clearly describes what functions you get when you change to the more advanced application. In GarageBand, a user only has limited possibilities for modifying sounds, but when the same sound is opened in Logic, the user gets access to more advanced parameters. I think this is a great example for how beginners and experts could potentially work together on projects but still use di%erent applications.

5.6.2 In the ApplicationGarageBand is limited compared to other applications but it still o%ers great possibilities for making music with great quality. As with most sequencers, it is based on the traditional, time linear, track-based approach. One obvious di%erence, though, is that the amount of functions and parameters are quite few. Only the frequently used functions are made available and they are structured around a track-based navigation in one main window. When a track is selected, the user gets access to all the setting for that track. Also, the wording in GarageBand is in some cases more simpli"ed, and there are many presets for sound and e%ect settings.

GarageBand has integrated lessons that teach users how to play an instrument. !e lessons are based around videos of well-known artists and I think it is great to use artist pro"les for educational material rather than just having them listed at the

68

website. Users can buy and download more lessons from within the application which shows how a company, such as Apple, can make money from selling instructional content instead of charging for the application itself. !e sound bank can be extended with sound packs for speci"c purposes and styles. New sounds integrates with the sound browser as if they were a natural part of the application.

I believe GarageBand will be extended with more features and thus become a more complete solution for music production. !e features will be added in ways that suit new users and they will gradually learn more with each new version of the program. I also predict there will be more automation in the application to help the users obtain better results. Even if GarageBand is ideal for beginners, it is not the perfect tool for everyone, and its close relation to Logic forces it to stay with some of the old concepts that could otherwise be improved for some use cases. !ere are many possibilities for other companies to get inspired by the improvements in GarageBand, add their creativity and knowledge, and build their own improved products.

5.6.3 Other ExamplesOf course there are other examples of so$ware designs that points in a new direction. As an example, the user interface in Ableton Live takes a step away from the commonly used hardware metaphor. For instance, Live has a mixer with volume faders, but the faders are not designed not resemble hardware faders, which is otherwise the common practice.

5.7 Reflections on the Project!is has been an interesting but also very challenging project. When doing something for the "rst time, you constantly make mistakes and realize things could have been done in a better way. I guess this is a good result of learning, but it can still be very frustrating.

!e wide and open nature of the project scope combined with a qualitative approach made it hard to get clear and useful results. !e main weakness of this project is the weak connection between the research "ndings and how they translate into concrete suggestions. Critics could question the validity of the results. However, design work o$en is a non-predictable and unstructured process. You realize that user research seldom leads to exact results, but the empathic knowledge

69

derived from spending time with users is one of the most valuable resources for a product designer.

!e main lesson is probably that it is not optimal to conduct interview driven research like this on your own. It makes it harder to collect data and with limited access to the supervisors’ time, you have less time to discuss results and ideas than you would need in a product design project. !e collaborative aspect of the design process is very important for idea generation and for keeping a critical distance to the things we easily end up taking for granted.

Another problem was that Propellerhead had very little experience with, and no process in place for, transforming user research into product design. I learned that it is relatively easy to engage users in user research, they are generally motivated and think it is fun to do tests. Observing users is a very e%ective way to "nd already implemented design weaknesses, but it is much harder to collect, document and transfer the knowledge to other people and make it useful for new designs.

5.8 Future Work!is project has only been a starting point to understand better the potential users of music so$ware. I recommend Propellerhead continue the research work as part of its ongoing design activities. Of course, there is also room for other students and researchers to tackle some of the many interesting questions about music so$ware design.

For another, I recommend a more speci"c problem formulation compared to the open character of this project. A good starting point could be one of the many challenging topics discussed in the international conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME). Examples range from methodologies for evaluating musical controllers [Collins et al. 2008] and musical metaphors for interface design [Bau et al. 2008] to new instrument designs like the TENORI-ON [Iwai and Nishibori 2006].

Suggested topics for future projects:

• How to prototype music so$ware and test new interface ideas with users• Is it possible to evaluate design suggestions without functional prototypes• How is the context for music making (when, where, what) a%ecting the creative

process for active users

70

• Map out the creative process and suggest improvements for increased &ow• Investigate the semantics for music making and so$ware tools• Test new variations of language for music tools and processes• Study more speci"c target groups• Develop relevant personas for di%erent types of music makers.• Evaluate processes for translating user knowledge into product design• Look at how new technology changes the conditions for music so$ware

development• What platforms are most suitable for music so$ware• Music so$ware design for speci"c platforms• What are the possibilities for mobile music making• Study speci"c parts of music so$ware in more detail• !e e%ect of sharing and collaboration on the internet• How to design interfaces for creative processes

5.9 Chapter SummaryPropellerhead should hire a lead designer who can lead the work to establish a user-centered design process. !e process goals are to gather extensive knowledge about current and potential users and use this knowledge as a foundation for new product designs. New products should target new users without prior experience in music technology. !e new users will be creators rather than engineers.

71

ReferencesAbleton (2010). Live. Accessed January 9 2010.http://www.ableton.com/live

Apple (2010). iLife. Accessed January 9 2010.http://www.apple.com/ilife

Bau, O., Mackay, W. E., and Tanaka, A. (2008). !e A20: Musical Metaphors for Interface Design. International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Genova, Italy, 2008.

Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual Design: De"ning Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.ISBN: 978-1-55860-411-7

Cakewalk (2010). Music Creator. Accessed January 9 2010.http://www.cakewalk.com/products/MusicCreator

Collins, N., Fitzpatrick, G., and Kiefer, C. (2008). HCI Methodology For Evaluating Musical Controllers: A Case Study. International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Genova, Italy.

Cooper, A., Cronin, D., and Reimann, R. (2007). About Face 3: !e Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley Publishing, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-470-08411-3

Flores, C. F. and Winograd, T. (1987). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc.ISBN: 978-0-201-11297-9

Gordon, P. S. and Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing Design to So$ware. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc.ISBN: 978-0-2018-5491-6

Harper, R., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., and Sellen, A. (2008). Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the year 2020. Microso$ Research Ltd.ISBN: 978-0-9554761-1-2

72

Iwai, T. and Nishibori, Y. (2006). TENORI-ON. International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Paris, France.

IxDA (2009). About Interaction Design. Accessed 19 December 2009.http://www.ixda.org/about_interaction.php

Jobs, S. (2010). Apple Special Event October 2010. Accessed October 25 2010.http://www.apple.com/apple-events

Löwgren, J., and Stolterman, E. (2004). Design av informationsteknik: materialet utan egenskaper. Studentlitteratur AB.ISBN: 978-9-1-440-4203-9

Löwgren, J. (2008). On Interaction Design. Accessed December 19 2009.http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/interaction_design.html

Ljung, A. (2006). Propellerhead Reason för nybörjare: Användarcentrerad utvärdering och designprocess. Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan.TRITA-CSC-E 2006:118

Moggridge, B. (2006). Designing Interactions. MIT Press.ISBN: 978-0-262-13474-3

Norman, D. A. (2002). !e Design of Everyday !ings. Basic Books.ISBN: 978-0-465-06710-7

Propellerhead (2010). About Propellerhead. Accessed January 9 2010.http://www.propellerheads.se/company/

Propellerhead (2010). Record. Accessed January 9 2010.http://www.propellerheads.se/products/record

Steinberg (2010). Sequel. Accessed January 9 2010.http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/sequel.html

73

AppendixSummary of Stakeholder InterviewsErnst, CEO

• Supporting beginners is a low priority because how the business works• !e business forces companies to focus mainly on features• Propellerhead has bad previous experiences from asking users what they want• When asking users we end up with long feature lists• We have to do a completely di%erent product in order to change the priorities• Propellerhead is better than the competitors to focus on the users' needs and

goals• People say they make more music when they switch to Reason• It is hard to say exactly what makes Reason a more productive tool, it is about

subtle di%erences• !e main part of our design work is based on gut feeling rather than proper

research• Propellerhead needs to get better at user research but it seems to be hard to

prioritize this work• !e music so$ware business in general is really bad at user research• !e vision for Record is to get people to be more creative and make more

music• Record's main weakness is the lack of certain features• Reason is a kind of instrument and a tool for music production• Reason's users are post teen men who are not afraid of technology• You cannot be afraid of technology if you want to use Reason• !e main reason people buy Reason is that they get results• You can feel that some products are made out of research• We have no established methodology for gathering information to base our

decisions on• Propellerhead has very little experience in translating user research into

product design• !ere is no good current so$ware for electronic music aimed at people who are

less interested in technology and more interested in music• Shorter lead times is the most important aspect to improve in our development

process

74

• It is very hard to make projections about new types of projects and motivate them business wise

• Propellerhead lacks tools for making prototypes and test solutions

Marcus, CTO• I take part in all the technical design and decide how our programs will work

technically• Together with the other owners, Pelle and Ernst, I decide what products we

should develop and what features they should have• We try to make programs that users really want instead of products that are

good for making ads• Traditionally we have designed products that we want to use ourselves• Before we did no research but now we have Anders who does interviews and

our product managers try to stay updated on what happens• It will be even more important in the future to do user research• Usability is our next main goal• We have to focus on comfortability and user interfaces• We try to give our product managers resources to do more user studies• We were quite introvert before but we now we listen more• !ere is a con&ict in taking away features and making good ads• Products compete with the number of features they have• Reason is a program for people who cares a lot about making music• Reason is not for beginners• Reason is for making songs, not just "ddling around with the program• I do not think we will change direction for Reason but instead make other,

complementary products• !e reason there are so few female users is perhaps that there are few females

who make computer-based music• We need to shorten the time from product design to "nish to improve the

development process• It used to be me and Ernst who designed the products but now we try to

involve more people in the process• For prototyping we make posters that describe the design and it works good• Our product managers are supposed to stay in contact with the users• We will see many improvements in usability and more attractive products

75

• We have reached a point where the technology is "nally in place and the computers are powerful enough to handle it

• We try to make products that you really can make music with• We do not have all the features but instead we focus on making our programs

useable• I think we will keep on doing our thing and the most important competitive

factor is whether the program is attractive or not• It is possible that we do not have the hardware metaphor in the future but some

things live a long time, like symbols, not because you need them but because they are a comfortable building blocks and communicate how things work

Mats, Product Manager• Having fun is the main reason people use Reason• Stability and technical performance are the main bene"ts of Reason• New users are discouraged by the complexity of the interface• Getting better at helping new users is the most important area to improve• Hardware needs to be more closely integrated with the so$ware• New user have to have computer literacy• Propellerhead has to be responsible for giving new users conceptual knowledge• You have to be interested in technology to be a Reason user• !ere are few female users since Reason is about computers and technology

which are traditionally male areas• Perhaps the problem is that most women are beginners and not that they are

women• Faster iterations is the most important aspect to improving in development

process• New products are mainly about the interface and how to do things rather than

if we can do them• !e focus must shi$ from technology towards interaction• Products should be designed by starting small and building up instead of

starting big and scaling down• Propellerhead needs to do user testing at earlier stages and more o$en during

the product development• Everyone involved in Propellerhead's product design agrees about the need for

user testing• New design strategies need to be tested and veri"ed before the project is started

76

• Anders is the one with the proper knowledge about user research and testing• Asking users is associated with results that are hard to use• You only get a list of features that are minor improvements of existing concepts• You have to "nd ways to "nd out about the users' real needs and frustrations• It would be great to have methods for measuring customer satisfaction

Ludvig, Product Manager• !e overall vision for Record is somewhat unclear, but we have been working

with the following four goals:• The million dollar studio: Provide the expensive gear that you usually

find in big studios

• Get there faster: Make the workflow good for fast results by hiding the things you usually do not need

• Sound better: Make it easier for people to make their music sound better with tools like great guitar amps

• Ready for the world: Make it easy for people to export their recordings to other applications

• Record has the same target group as Reason: people who are serious about making music

• !e users' engagement is expressed through the time and money they spend on making music

• !e level of engagement, rather than the actual results, is what makes a typical user

• People will mainly buy Record because of the Reason integration, the rack and the mixer

• People might get frightened when they see the big mixer and overwhelmed by all the strange knobs

• !e bigger a UI element is on the screen, the better people think it sounds• People with a so$ware only background will probably think it is rather strange

to have a hardware mixer in Record• With Record, we have not made the easiest system in the world and it might be

a little tricky to understand some things• !ere is no special demand for any prior knowledge for using Record• It will be hard to use Record if you do not understand how a mixer generally

works but we do not expect you to know how a compressor works• Propellerhead wants to deliver a lot of information and help users. It is a part of

the product and company vision

77

• We need to make the program helpful and easy to understand, add more tutorials and help in the program

• Fredrik is responsible for the help sections in our products• !e vision to make it easier for users is quite new• !e solution is about being available and to expand our community and

customer support• I do not know what the key is to whether Record will be successful or not• I want to shorten the lead times to improve the development process• Shorter lead times will make it easier to react on feedback• We do not lack any special competence for the project• People seem to think that the easiest way to get help is asking in the forum• People prefer video tutorials instead of text• I read our forums, other internet resources and magazines to stay in contact

with potential users• It seems impossible to have contact with users before you release the "rst

version of a program because you cannot get any concrete feedback• I do not know what the important factors for designing good so$ware are but I

think it is important to have some identity, something that is special• We are not very open to new ideas since we are so slow• Record is one step closer to our competitors compared to Reason• What we can hope for is that the work&ow is really great in Record• I have heard several users say that they get a lot more things done with Reason• I do not know what is making Reason's work&ow good• I do not think it is possible to research the qualities in Reason because they are

not possible to quantify

Tim, Marketing Director• Reason is seen as a tool for technical guys who makes techno music• Propellerhead should help creators handle technology and be able to focus on

music• !e di%erent approach to music making and great focus (limitations) are

Reason's main product qualities• Propellerhead lacks the time and resources to do proper customer evaluations• I want to build a way to measure ongoing customer satisfaction• It is possible to reach new market segments by new messaging in new channels

78

• !ere is a great need for tutorials and education material related to the products

• People in general are not as interested in new features as our core users• !e industry is typically about listing features instead of other qualities• Users choose certain products because their friends use them• It is more about doing a limited product right than just adding all the possible

features• !e industry is highly male even though many women are interested in music• It is possible to get more female users, just look at the gaming industry• Women will never feel comfortable in music stores• !ere is no way Propellerhead could do worse in supporting women• It is more about investing time than money for beginners• !e current type of so$ware is mature so there is a great need to look at new

products and business models• It is far from clear how this change should be done• It is very hard for a company to change as long as the current model is

pro"table and the alternative strategies are not• !ere is a need for a new type of interaction design to enable the functions

currently available in a really nice new way

Anders, Interaction Designer• Reason is more of an instrument than a complete production tool• !e &exibility o%ered by the cables are Reason's main bene"t• Reason used to be simple but not anymore• !ere is no need to improve Reason• Reason is not for beginners• Reason is hard for people who have no real experience of patching cables• Propellerhead's design process works as follows:

• The founders come up with a theme for a release

• Together with the product manager they come up with a number of features that are supposed to fulfill the goal (theme)

• They create a document with all the features and write specifications for how they should work

• This process is done by a few people and there is very little reality check and evaluation during the design phase

• Propellerhead is a company that builds products that Propellerhead wants• We mainly communicate with existing users through our forum

79

• Propellerhead has very little contact with potential users• If Propellerhead is supposed to make programs that are di%erent from the ones

we have done traditionally, we need to start doing more research earlier in the process

• Propellerhead needs to change as a company and get better at extracting the right information from user research

• It is very useful to test with beginners to get clear results• It is harder to test with experts• It is hard to change existing processes• !e business will not change much over the next ten years• Propellerhead should use its knowledge to create a new program based on a

new metaphor• We need to do more research and perhaps let new people make product

decisions• I am the one with the proper knowledge about user testing but I do not have

enough resources for it at the moment• !e problem is also that I am not very good at defending my opinions in a

debate and I am not a visionary person

Kristoffer, Content Manager• Content development is coordinated with product development and the overall

theme for each product release• Reason is for many genres and I think people use it as a sketching tool• Our sound packs are expensive and quite advanced• One goal is to get people to buy Reason in order to use the sounds we release• Having great sounds have a%ected the view of Reason as being a toy into

becoming a serious tool• People consider Reason to be a toy mainly due to the way the graphical

interface looks• !e graphical interface is the most important aspect for the quality feel and

that a%ects the views on sound quality as well• I think we will see many DSP-based emulations of instruments instead of using

samples• People buy Reason because you get a complete package for little money• Reason is a good if you are a bit nerdy and want to sit and patch cables• It is relevant to ask users what they want

80

• We have a policy to always try to develop things that the users did not know they wanted

81

Summary of Subject Matter Expert InterviewsAndrea, Teacher

• With Reason it takes around 4 to 5 days to teach people the basics• People want to pay for help to get started but then continue on their own so

most people only take our basic courses• Many deejays want to learn about music production• Schools are very interested in music education, especially now when they have

to compete for getting the students• Reason is good for educational environments since it is stable and CPU

e#cient• People who teach music production think it is good that Reason has a limited

amount of features• Some students expect the so$ware to do things automatically• We have looked at ways to scale our education but to keep the quality it is

important to have the personal contact that happens in the class rooms• About 20 percent of the course participants are female• We market our courses in music stores and through schools• People who are used to use computers tend to understand music so$ware quite

fast but they have a lot to learn about the concepts of music production• Today, you do not have to know anything about synthesizers if you look for a

certain sound• GarageBand has set the stage in this area and now most programs implement

the concept of selecting sounds by browsing categories• !e people taking our getting started courses, o$en think it will be easy to

make music and then realize that they have no idea how to do it• Our courses are mainly about work&ow and the participants get excited when

they learn key commands and how to work with the interface• Most of the time they would never have found out about the shortcuts unless

we had told them• In Reason you work in a closed environment so I think it is easier for people to

keep using it a$er the course• Other programs have many features that most users never use• In general, our students want to do something fun and music is a fantastic

hobby• !ey want to focus more on creating instead of trying to understand

technology and we help them with that

82

• !e sound engineering aspect is the main barrier for the average student• It is hard to get people to understand why you cannot have an individual

reverb on each channel• Younger people generally do not understand how much work is needed for

making music• !ey understand the program but they do not understand how a compressor

works• !ere are many misconceptions but they o$en learn how to handle the

program quite fast• It is hard to make more than a few bars of music and then it gets boring• I do not think books are good for learning, especially if you are unfamiliar with

the vocabulary for music technology• Videos are e%ective but o$en too polished • I think the internet is the future• It would be great if you could have the applications online as well - they could

be free so you can try it and get the inspiration to get going, then you can have videos connected to the application

• It is very hard to know what products you should use because there are so many alternatives

• You have to chose your tools and ways of working which is hard• We usually tell people to use something their friends use so that they can help

each other• People have a dream to do everything themselves but that is usually what kills

their creativity because it takes so much time and very few can actually do it• We o$en see that people who take our longer courses start making music

together. To collaborate is a natural part of music, some people are good at playing piano and others write lyrics

• Are there any general di%erences between men and women? Actually not, except that there is always more men than women, especially in the younger groups

• It is like the society in general: guys are the ones who spend the most time with computers, technology and music

• I have never heard a girl say come and listen to this cool thing - they do not need that approval

• Girls can sometimes complain about the user interfaces

83

• Gils comment on the graphics and I think the interfaces are generally less appealing to girls because they are designed by men

Eric, Entrepreneur and Artist• I make music because it is so much fun to do it• I like the whole process and it feels like I have succeeded if I can create the

sound I want• It is important to get feedback from the people I respect who also make music• Sharing the music with others is an important part of the process• I want to make music alone because I do not want to compromise• Music applications are built on the same old paradigm: mixer, instrument and

sequencer• I have ideas for a new type of music application: A paradigm shi$! It should

work more like Adobe A$er E%ects and the trick is to do background rendering and get away from the idea of having low latency

• I use Logic because it sounds great and Live because it is great to work with• Reason is too hard because there are too many knobs and buttons• More and more people make music• At SoundCloud, we have many conversations with our users but in the end it is

what we think is good that gets built

Henrik and Peder, Producers and Artists• !ere is de"nitely a di%erence between being a producer and a creator• We are typical tech guys but that is not necessary for being a good producer• We have colleagues that are very good producers but not as technically skilled• !e more music you make, the more fun it gets and technology becomes less

important• Before, I was really interested in technology but now it is less important• It feels like the development has stagnated and you do not see so many

interesting new products• We are waiting for someone to make something fundamentally new• Ableton keeps being progressive and Live has a great interface where you

instantly know how things work• Most applications are very big and take a lot of time to learn• We want to have a tool where you can work with elastic audio and manipulate

audio without destroying it• !e hard part of making music is to arrange the tracks

84

• It would be great if it was easier to make the mixes sound better• I have realized that you get the best results by using traditional mixing

techniques, but perhaps that is because the applications are build for that type of work&ow

• I wonder what Reason's main target group is• We think that Reason is not a professional tool but more for kids since the

interface looks unprofessional• When you get so many features for little money you automatically think it is

not so good quality• !e functions in Live are so unique that you cannot deny them• An important way to learn is having someone showing you how new things

work• For people who want to get started it is important to get fast results• We know people who have learned to use GarageBand very fast even though

they are not very technical• I guess Apple is generally good at making things easy• When you work with so$ware it is hard to get rid of the visual part and I

believe the creativity is a%ected by the fact that you are watching the screen all the time

• It is very di%erent to listen to a song if you turn o% the screen so you have to be careful and do that every now and then

• !e gear you use de"nes your sound• You need diverse products because each application tends to have a certain

sound• For Propellerhead, the challenge is mainly to change the interface and increase

the status of the brand• Propellerhead should let go of the idea of having everything looking like

hardware - young people today cannot relate to hardware anyway• It is better to focus on making the application an instrument itself, like Ableton

Live• It feels like Reason is neither for pros nor beginners, but something in between,

so Propellerhead needs to be more clear about what is special about Reason compared to its competitors

• It is better to buy plugins because you get a toy feeling when you get everything at once

• It would be cool with a program completely focused on external hardware

85

• !ere is a need for a whole new approach - it is weird that we still "ddle around with Mini Moogs in the computer - someone has to take it to the next level

Lisen, Artist• We (our group) have a very open approach to genres - we explore sound and

try to make music we like• I was a classical musician at "rst but we went in to electronic music to broaden

the sound spectra• We did not know anything about technology when we started but it was great

to be three people in the group and support each other in learning• We spent much time just trying things to learn, but I do not think I would have

had the same motivation if I would have been doing it all by myself• We had no role models when we started• We have been getting much attention because we are women making electronic

music• We use the computer as an instrument when we play live• I have not started using Reason because it is a barrier to learn something new• I want to spend time on writing songs and record them instead of learning new

applications• I do not understand how Reason works which feels bad• Most programs have too many functions and most of the time you do not need

all the functions• I always look for new sounds and then it is good to have new applications• Reason is a good sound bank• We are using hardware samplers because they are more limited• Companies that make new products want to put in as many features as possible

which is bad because you get a lot more than you need• I think most manuals are very hard to understand and I do not like to read

manuals• You need to understand the language to understand the manual which is hard• I think a good way to learn is to take a lesson or just try things• !e best is to have someone you can ask• When you start understand how something work you get inspired to go on

with it• It is part of our culture that men "x cars and other technical stu%• It is better to think that a computer is a tool for realizing dreams

86

• I like applications that are more speci"c in scope• It is good if the application can hide functions you do not use to avoid

distraction

Karin, Runs an Organization Called Playsister• Women have always been pushed aside in the music world so we want to make

it easier for them instead of telling them that they do not have enough knowledge

• It is harder for girls to get going with music since they get more resistance• People have much prejudice, like saying that girls do not know anything about

technology• Being a female singer is generally more accepted• If you are into music, people assume that you are a feminist and politically

active - they think you want to "ght for female rights since women are a minority in the music "eld

• We do not believe in locking out men but a certain amount of the band members have to be female

• Having fun is the main motive for people involved in music• Everyone can relate to music, but how people want to express their musical

interest is very individual• I believe that changing the attitudes is the key to get more women interested in

music together with making it easier to "nd people to collaborate with• If you get pass the initial barriers it is o$en possible to go further on your own• I believe it is important to meet people with similar interests and exchange

knowledge and experiences• To collaborate is necessary, at least to get feedback on what you are doing• I think the globalization that the internet brings is good for erasing prejudice

since it is easier to "nd people and suitable role models• In ten years, I think there will be more artists in general and a larger part will

be women• !e internet is good since you do not have to go into a music store to "nd out

about equipment• It is hard for beginners to know what gear you need• I think most girls are scared of going to a music store and ask about things they

do not know about - they are afraid of seeming stupid• I would feel better about it if there were women working in the music stores

87

• It would be great if there was better product information on the internet, but at the same time it is important to be able to try the gear before you buy it

Åsa, Runs an Organization Called Popkollo• !e participants make a lot of music during Popkollo, but it is hard for them to

continue when they get back to their hometown because then they do not have any people that support them

• !e most important aspects of music are identity and social context• It is the lack of social context in that makes it so hard for women who want to

make music• Role models are very important• !ere are no female nerds that girls can look up to• Apple has succeeded in making the Macbook socially accepted so many girls

get one and feel proud about it• !e value for the user is based on the social context• !e product identity must be built on more than just technology - it also needs

social communication• I believe the key is to put the product in the right context "nd new channels for

communication

88

Summary of Insights from User InterviewsMotivation for Making Music

• Fun and stimulating• General interest in music• Listening to a lot of music• Want to make the music you want to listen to• Want to make the music you feel is missing• It is a challenge to see if you can make music• Impressed by people making music• A way to express yourself• Inspiring social context• Getting results is stimulating• Positive feedback on what you create• Great feeling if people appreciate what you have done• Possible to play for an audience• More and more people make music• Other people prove that it is possible• Role models are inspiring and important• Electronic music is an alternative if you do not play an instrument• Many people (even girls) are interested in deejaying• Deejaying is a natural step before you start making your own music• !e possibility to make music by yourself, independently of others• You spend a lot of time with the computer so why not create something

Barriers for Making Music• It is complicated to make music• Lack of knowledge about technology and methods for making music• Preconceptions about who is capable of making music• Unclear what results you will get• Fear of failure• Fear of lacking talent• You have to have serious and professional tools for making good music• You get tired of trying when you do not understand• Hard to know where to start and what gear to use• Hard to try gear without buying it "rst• Hard to "nd people to collaborate with

89

• You need some external push to get started• !ere is a cost for getting started• No conceptual understanding of the process• Most applications are considered to be very complex and big• It is prestigious to make music• Generally hard to manage technology• Scary to play your songs for others• Lack of communication for beginners• Frustrating to get stuck and not knowing what to do• High expectations from yourself and from others• You want fast results• Easy to get disturbed by all the other functions in a computer

Support for Making Music• !e technical side is a barrier you have to get over to be able to express musical

ideas• It is ok to spend much time as long as you feel you are on the right track• You want to have a clear ladder with steps for how to learn more• You want to be sure that what you learn will be useful in the future before you

spend much time• !e best way to learn is to try things but sometimes you need support from

others• Asking people you know is the most common and reliable way to collect

information• It is scary to ask for help in music stores• You o$en get the gear your friends recommend• It is easier to try a pirate version than downloading the demo of an application• It is important to be able to try gear before you buy it• You want gear that is good enough but not too good• You want to understand how your equipment works and know the rules before

you break them• You think that you need to understand all the functions to be able to use an

application• !e main concept of making music seems to be easy to understand but you

need a lot of support to learn the details of the speci"c parts• People with much knowledge are generally positive about helping others

90

• Tutorial video tutorials are good for learning the basics• Videos should be focused on the screen all the time so you see what happens• You expect the program makers to supply the tutorials • You rather spend time on the musical parts than learning technology• You need to learn the terminology to understand the tools• Most people do not like manuals• !e information should be in the application instead of in the manual• Presets are good for understanding how a certain unit a%ects the sound

Priorities for New Music Making Tools• Simplicity• Structure• Overview• !e sound (how the application sound)• Easy to get started• Natural to explore• !e possibility to experiment and play• Another attitude towards new users• Make music with your hands rather than the mouse

Females Users and Music Making• Music and technology are traditionally male areas• Women are expected to be singers and dancers but not producers• Women are less interested in technology• Women do not associate themselves with technology• !ere is a lack of social context and role models for women• Not believing in your own skills is probably the main barrier for girls• You have to have very strong motivation to get over the technology barriers• Men are better at digging deep into technology and are more passionate• Women are not as motivated to focus on one thing (less nerdy)• Men have greater belief in themselves• Women are less likely to think they are making something good• Women are reluctant to ask for help• Women are reluctant to visit music stores• Women fear that they will live up to expectations about them not being good at

technology• Women are afraid of seeming stupid

91

• !e trend is that girls are getting more interested in computers• We see more and more female role models• !e fact that very few women make music can be seen as an opportunity as

well• It is hard to get into the music world• Many of the female music makers have had men supporting them and

motivated them in the beginning

92

TRITA-CSC-E 2011:070 ISRN-KTH/CSC/E--11/070-SE

ISSN-1653-5715

www.kth.se