Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrHaugen]

I think this is an excellent idea. This could potentially fix many Theater View woes where people want more options for skinning. If you keep this in mind when building it, I believe you would have many happy customers. Keep as many of the "settings" in the skin as you can so people can change the look just by loading a skin. Font's, layout, menus, etc.

I would even go so far as to allow the views to be built into the skin, with the option to use your own. Many users don't want to build their own views, while others demand it.

Just my 2c.

I think you nailed it here. Skinnable is imo KEY to making more users happy. If it's easy to skin and there are lots of options for developers, there will be a healthy number of people that will create new skins. And the lesser technical users could just browse through user- and JRiver-produced skins to get the skin that best suites their need.

No restrictions in when navigation schemes, what types of views there are, what graphics are used or where the elements are placed. That would be a dream come true.

Also allowing for plugins in such an interface would be MOST welcome. Plugin for subtitles for example. Easy to configure setup with remote and automatic subtitle downloading. Plugin for weather info, and so on.

[RedJ]

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but my concern about the Pretty Face initiative is that it continues the trend of fracturing the way MC is interfaced and used, which I think will tend to have the opposite consequence from what's intended.  More up-front choices is more confusing for the average person and it's hard for me to see where this would be more acceptable to the non power-users in the household than say Kodi via DLNA.  I would much prefer to see some serious development overhaul (perhaps also consolidation) on existing interfaces, such as Theater View and Gizmo rather than adding another choice in an already fairly overwhelming set of choices. Since we haven't seen anything yet, it's hard to say whether what you are working on would be applicable to any of the existing interfaces, but I'd personally really like to see Gizmo overhauled to become more of a universal interface, maybe even runnable as a Display Mode inside the standard interface.  An improved Gizmo would be something I'd actually pay extra for.

[blgentry]

RedJ:  Have you seen or tried JRemote?  It's much more polished and feature complete than Gizmo.  Which is probably why several people in this thread have suggested *it* as the model for Pretty Face.

Glynor has also suggested that JRemote be ported and modified to run on the new Apple TV that was just announced, as a sort of universal Theater View.  I think that's a pretty interesting idea too.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=100030.0

Brian.

[RedJ]

RedJ:  Have you seen or tried JRemote?

I have read about and investigated JRemote but at $10 it is on the higher price range for an app and there is no trial version available, so I don't have any first person experience with it.

Actually, the decision to launch JRemote separately from Gizmo contributes to my feeling that JRiver is fragmenting their interfaces rather than refining existing solutions.  I think it might have been better for Gizmo to have been rolled into JRemote development and put out as a feature-limited version for trial purposes.  That way, there's not a bunch of different somewhat-redundant interfaces, JRiver can still say they've got a free solution and also provide a way to interest users in the paying for the full version.  Assuming the JRemote interface and engine is appropriate and flexible enough, it would make sense to me, from a product focus and simplification standpoint, to make it a universal interface for various platforms rather than develop yet another interface to choose from.  If you want to truly make it newbie/family member friendly, wouldn't it be preferable for the interface my wife uses on her phone to be the same as the one she uses on the television set, as the one she uses on her laptop?

[stewart_pk]

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but my concern about the Pretty Face initiative is that it continues the trend of fracturing the way MC is interfaced and used, which I think will tend to have the opposite consequence from what's intended.  More up-front choices is more confusing for the average person and it's hard for me to see where this would be more acceptable to the non power-users in the household than say Kodi via DLNA.  I would much prefer to see some serious development overhaul (perhaps also consolidation) on existing interfaces, such as Theater View and Gizmo rather than adding another choice in an already fairly overwhelming set of choices. Since we haven't seen anything yet, it's hard to say whether what you are working on would be applicable to any of the existing interfaces, but I'd personally really like to see Gizmo overhauled to become more of a universal interface, maybe even runnable as a Display Mode inside the standard interface.  An improved Gizmo would be something I'd actually pay extra for.

I very much agree with this, we don't need another interface. KODI and Media Portal to a lesser degree are the huge competitors and superior in interface and TV support compared to JRiver in Theater View and it's TV support. Although I moved on from Gizmo a while ago and use eos because it's just wonderful and only a $5 from memory.

[Vocalpoint]

I very much agree with this, we don't need another interface.

I totally disagree. The current MC "Shell" - in any way, shape or form you want to install or try to "temper" it for the masses - is still too complex.

JRemote on the other hand - is a wonderful UI that instantly shields a budding user from all the complexities and gets right into the media with little to no learning curve. And addresses the key element of this thread  - which is "PLAYBACK".

I always use my wife as my sounding board - she despises MC as an app on screen in Windows for "playback" and refuses to go near it.

But give her JRemote - for Playback - she is all in.

Not saying this is the ultimate test - but for me - here - it's the only one I got. And it's clear that the MC default Windows UI (for playback) is not for any beginner.

VP

[gvanbrunt]

I think Stewart's point is not that we don't need a user friendly interface, but that we need something more skinable. Instead of building 20 interfaces, build one that can be shaped to the device/users needs.

[mwillems]

I can see advantages to having pretty face be modular and customizable, and I can see advantages to having a cross-platform port of JRemote.  Honestly, I'm just looking forward to having some kind of touch or big screen interface (regardless of which way it goes) on non-windows platforms.  Anything would be better than nothing, and I'd be happy either way.

Currently the only option on Linux is Webgizmo, and it isn't quite up to task. I and my homemade raspberry pi tablet are awaiting Pretty Face with bated breath 

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=100186.0

[Vocalpoint]

I think Stewart's point is not that we don't need a user friendly interface, but that we need something more skinable. Instead of building 20 interfaces, build one that can be shaped to the device/users needs.

"skinnable" in the sense that we simply jazz up the complex interface we have now with more fancy graphics and colors? Can't be already skin this thing? That won't make MC any more simply to navigate.

The reason I find JRemote to be so appealing is that it's instantly usable. There is no wondering on how to get something going. And there is no visible reminder of the actual complexity of MC.

This is exactly what I thought this thread was about - offering a "simple" interface for playback? Not trying to shoehorn "simplicity" into the current UI...

VP

[JimH]

I think Stewart's point is not that we don't need a user friendly interface, but that we need something more skinable. Instead of building 20 interfaces, build one that can be shaped to the device/users needs.

Theater View has been skinnable for more than five years and it's only been done a few times.

[Hendrik]

When people say "Skinnable" they often mean much more than the visual skin, which is where the confusion comes from. You can Skin Theater View - but you can only Skin it in the strictest sense. You can change its appearance, but you cannot change its behavior, basic layout or navigation with a "Skin" - which is what some people would like to do.

What you probably want is "Customizable", its a rather generic word, but what people want to do is also rather generic. Some like a different look, some would prefer an entirely new interface.

With the trend of HTML taking over every interface there is, maybe that would be an idea to pursue. Extend MCWS as needed, and build a fancy responsive WebGizmo replacement, which looks good on a Phone, Tablet and PC - and incidentally, also works on every type of phone in one go, no special Android, iOS or Windows Phone magic - only audio/video playback may need some handling, but HTML5 is making advances there as well.

Serving as a template, people could build their own interfaces on top of that with all the customization they need. And Web Knowledge is widely available!

Many Android and iOS applications actually work like that, they are just a "website" masquerading as an app. Windows "Modern" (formerly Metro) apps are also based on web technologies.

[mwillems]

When people say "Skinnable" they often mean much more than the visual skin, which is where the confusion comes from. You can Skin Theater View - but you can only Skin it in the strictest sense. You can change its appearance, but you cannot change its behavior, basic layout or navigation with a "Skin" - which is what some people would like to do.

What you probably want is "Customizable", its a rather generic word, but what people want to do is also rather generic. Some like a different look, some would prefer an entirely new interface.

With the trend of HTML taking over every interface there is, maybe that would be an idea to pursue. Extend MCWS as needed, and build a fancy responsive WebGizmo replacement, which looks good on a Phone, Tablet and PC - and incidentally, also works on every type of phone in one go, no special Android, iOS or Windows Phone magic - only audio/video playback may need some handling, but HTML5 is making advances there as well.

Serving as a template, people could build their own interfaces on top of that with all the customization they need.

I think this is a good statement of the issue and what people are hoping for.  When people talk about skinning they often mean what XBMC or Kodi allows, which is way, way beyond conventional skinning.  The interface support there is modular, so not only can you change how elements look, but you can move them around, or remove them entirely (or add your own).  Customization and modularity with a nice, polished, easy to use default are (I think) what most folks are looking for.

A good analogy is the way the view system works in MC.  The default views are a good sane default, but users can change them, add new views, change the entire tree structure, remove things, etc.  It's one of the best and most popular features of MC.  

So imagine something like the view system but for a simplified user interface.  Nice clean defaults, but elements can be changed, added, removed, or rearranged entirely.  By default maybe it looks like JRemote. But, if you wanted to, a user could strip it down so all there is is a button that says "Play Music" that launches Play Doctor or (contrarily) stud it with so many control surfaces that it looks like a HUD in a space simulator.

That's the dream anyway  

[rlebrette]

When people say "Skinnable" they often mean much more than the visual skin, which is where the confusion comes from. You can Skin Theater View - but you can only Skin it in the strictest sense. You can change its appearance, but you cannot change its behavior, basic layout or navigation with a "Skin" - which is what some people would like to do.

What you probably want is "Customizable", its a rather generic word, but what people want to do is also rather generic. Some like a different look, some would prefer an entirely new interface.

With the trend of HTML taking over every interface there is, maybe that would be an idea to pursue. Extend MCWS as needed, and build a fancy responsive WebGizmo replacement, which looks good on a Phone, Tablet and PC - and incidentally, also works on every type of phone in one go, no special Android, iOS or Windows Phone magic - only audio/video playback may need some handling, but HTML5 is making advances there as well.

Serving as a template, people could build their own interfaces on top of that with all the customization they need. And Web Knowledge is widely available!

Many Android and iOS applications actually work like that, they are just a "website" masquerading as an app. Windows "Modern" (formerly Metro) apps are also based on web technologies.

+1, I think it's the way to go, it's something I already have investigated (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98003.msg678396#msg678396) and it's really promising. Providing a "standard Javascript framework" to access MC is the most important block. Push from the MC engine would be also interesting, this would avoid the client to poll the server for the player status.

[JimH]

With the trend of HTML taking over every interface there is, maybe that would be an idea to pursue. Extend MCWS as needed, and build a fancy responsive WebGizmo replacement ...

The idea is fine, but it's pretty much what we did with WebGizmo.  It is customizeable now, but it's rarely been done.

It's easy to imagine a different or better interface, but it's hard to get agreement on what that is, and it's time consuming to build. 

It is worth doing or I wouldn't have started this thread.

[Hendrik]

WebGizmo was created long before i even knew MC existed, so I do not know its history and initial motivations - but looking at it now, it wouldn't inspire me to customize it, because the default interface just isn't very good for todays standards in web interfaces.
If I wanted to create a new web-based MC interface and looked for something to start from, WebGizmo wouldn't inspire that. And I did work in Web before I came to JRiver.

If a new web-based "pretty" interface was developed, with one of the primary motivations to allow easy customization as well (ie. by providing an easy to use JavaScript library that hides a lot of the complexity, and some support in MC to easily install alternate "Skins"), and then properly marketed and pushed through companion apps to TVs, Phones, Tablets, I would think it would be a popular alternative by itself, and for people wanting to customize it.

The primary reason people choose web interfaces is of course portability (if developed with that in mind, of course). It allows for one interface to be used everywhere, from your phone to a TV, from Windows to Linux, from iOS to Android and Windows Phone.

[rlebrette]

I'm not totally sure, but I think I'm the only one who have tried to build something on top of the WebGizmo engine. 
I mean, trying to go further than just adding some info or images in the existing skin.
Something that looks prettier that the default Web 1.0 skin.
The result is still shared on https://github.com/rlebrette/jrmc-jqm-gizmo
It's not as beautiful as JRemote or EOS but it's just because I'm not a graphical designer. My goal was to see if it is easy to create a "Pretty Face" inteface.
WebGizmo is slightly different from the solution Hendrik has described, because WebGizmo is based on a template engine.
I would say that WebGizmo suffers exactly the same kind of problem the Theater View has. A template engine that works in a very defined way.
As Hendrik wrote it, it's not a matter of making the result fancy but to make interface behaves in another way that the one that has been initially designed.
The WebGizmo design is driven by the template engine, and the only thing you can do without diving in the MCWS API is to skin the pages.
I've bypassed several limitations by using the template engine to produce json instead of html. And I use this json to fill pages, but it's pretty limited.
I did another experimentation (https://github.com/rlebrette/jrmc-ws-server/) where the MCWS API is wrapped in a more high level API (REST/JSON/Websockets), which is providing the data to a remote web application. This is the kind of services that should be available directly in the MC engine. Backed up with a library of components on the client side this would address most of the requirement for creating user designed interfaces.

Here are some examples of Multimedia apps built on top of HTML5, CSS and a set of well designed APIs:

https://github.com/Atraci/Atraci
http://www.soundnodeapp.com/
https://github.com/sapjax/TimoFM
https://github.com/shubapp/u2bear
http://www.topanimestream.com/en/

Hope it helps

[gappie]

Theater View has been skinnable for more than five years and it's only been done a few times.

well.. I use my own skin, and indeed, there is not so much you can do. and even than a part is broken. you can for instance change something to the playing now part, like adding a clock (as a test, only to playing now, not to the other layouts) and see that its only sometimes there.. ive posted about it before.. but that might be an other reason why not so much skins are made..

I love the idea of Hendrik's..

 
gab

[gvanbrunt]

Theater View has been skinnable for more than five years and it's only been done a few times.

I don't think that is a fair statement Jim. There have been plenty of threads on why no one bothers to skin Theater View. For one many items that should be skinable are instead in the settings. This has 2 effects: the skins can't do much compared to other platforms, and users are frustrated because they just want to select a skin and be done with it.

Even if that was addressed (which would be huge) there still remains a wide margin between what can be accomplished on other platforms. On others you could pretty much duplicate: web view, theater view, JRemote, EOS, and Gizmo with skins. My guess is you could probably do Pretty face as well, but since it doesn't exist yet, that's pure speculation.

In my opinion the fact that so many similar interfaces exists points to something needing improvement instead of yet another interface. Or a least a new interface that can evolve cover that.

[stewart_pk]

I quite like Theater View I must say, it could be improved but I still like it.

If you look at KODI it has one HTPC interface for playback and options.
If you look at Media Portal is has one HTPC interface for playback where some of the options can be changed but not all; there are other interfaces for the nitty gritty stuff.

But JRiver's biggest success (lots of options) seem to directly cause the issues with Theater View.
For starters there is no way to change any of the settings in Theater View so you've got to start the application in Standard View the first time. Even if you use Theater View predominantly you've got to switch back to Standard View to do it.

Here's an idea, implement the ability to change as many options as possible in Theater View without over-complicating things for the novice user, I guess something pretty similar to Media Portal and KODI. Enough options available in Theater View that they should never need to go to Standard View unless they want to get their hands dirty. During the first run after installation of JRiver prompt the user if they want "Desktop mode" (Standard View) or "HTPC mode" (Theater View) initially.