Print

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

[Ferdi]

You can save a Play Doctor list and find it under Playlists on any remote.

I am with previous posters - done lots of tagging and created lots of smart playlists, system works for me. And I've got no interest or time in creating more playlists as a work-around to Play Doctor missing on jremote on iPhone.

Having said that, I tried it via iPad last night and sort of like the results a lot Should probably have researched more before setting up my playlists.

This is the same old with JRiver though: great, unbeatable functionality hidden behind clunky UX and confusing terminology (Play Doctor, Car Radio, Radio Kiss, Zones etc.). I noticed on the recent 'How We Work' blog (great one, by the way) that UI / UX is not mentioned at all. Working in SW industry myself, that stood out.  Sorry, bit off topic here.

 

[Spike1000]

With the greatest of respect Jim, these comments are a bit of a clue to JRiver.

"This is the same old with JRiver though: great, unbeatable functionality hidden behind clunky UX and confusing terminology"

I've been using MC for over 2 (maybe 3 years)  and I love it but I'm a techie. "unbeatable functionality hidden behind clunky UX and confusing terminology" is a fair description of MC from an outsider. It's quirky and hard to learn. If you're technically minded and like audio you might be prepared to put the man hours in to learn the product, but that must also turn many people away. I've stuck with it but I'm sure many many people have given up along the way.

I'm astounded there still are no walk through videos on YouTube. I participate in the forum but the same old questions come up again and again. The man hours spent answering the same old questions must far exceed the time taken to create a video of a screen capture with overlaid audio describing common situations. I've never had a reply as to why JRiver won't produce any videos on how to use their product.

I'm well experienced in windows applications but in my experience multi platform applications (windows, linux & mac) produced from a common code base struggle to shine against applications that are written for a single platform due to the UI limitations.

Get your product on YouTube, ride on the back of more search hits, get more website hits and get more sales! Also spend less time answering the same forum questions to free up more developer time/ it can't be good value for money for the CEO of a company spending their time answering support calls on a forum. Their input is clearly welcome. but it's not good use of their costly time!

Just my 2p

Spike

[JimH]

Any specific advice on the UX?

[jmone]

I'm just not sure you can have a simple UX and lots of features.

It's quirky and hard to learn. If you're technically minded and like audio you might be prepared to put the man hours in to learn the product, but that must also turn many people away. I've stuck with it but I'm sure many many people have given up along the way.

This is how I feel about Photoshop.  I just don't have the desire (or need) to spend the time and effort to work out Photoshop.  MS Paint on the other hand is nice and simple. 

To my mind there are all sorts of simplifications that JR have done with MC to make stuff simple and easy to learn.  Take "Red October" and the work done to make sure that video just plays without having to understand Direct Show Filters.  I'll grant you that the name "Red October" is quirky however

[astromo]

I'll say this about UX / UI ... consistency.

I work in the standard view world. Can't speak to theatre view.

I am so glad that the MC UI doesn't change shape every version or two. It's largely consistent from version to version and build to build. This makes the UX consistent and saves me potential frustration. I can't say the same for other software where the underlying engine is the same but the UI gets a regular make over too satisfy anyone but a schmuck user like me.

It may be clunky to some but at least it's consistent, which makes it easy to learn when compared with the alternative.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of YouTube tutes. I'd rather read step by step instructions. I would think it fair to say that providing guidance to users (new and old alike) is a never ending demand. On that note, it wouldn't hurt to see some expansion of the Wiki from the originating developer, even if it's not much more than a link back to the new feature announcement on the forum. I may have missed this being consistently done over time. Apologies for any oversight.

I speak from the position of experience in engineering, commissioning and operating process plants where documenting how it works to suit a non-engineer is simply part and parcel of the job. I'd applaud ongoing effort in this regard and offer thanks to devs and other users who have assisted me along the way and hopefully will when needed in future.

[jmone]

In our house I use Std View to do all the Mgt of the Media and then Theater View for the Family to consume the content.  STD View has all the power exposed to setup both the Library and the config for each of the HW Devices that Theater View runs on.  None of my Family would be able to do the Std View stuff but they all can use Theater View with out issue.

Over the years I (as have many others) spent a fair bit of time and effort (in bursts) trying to update the Wiki but ... it is a pretty thankless task and I'm not sure that many people refer to it.  When I first started I really wanted a "manual" as well, but I get JimH's point in that with the constant release of new versions this would be an expensive task to keep updated, even the wiki quickly becomes outdated. 

From my selfish POV, I'd rather JR spend their $ on Developing new features rather than doco.... but then again I'm now used to how MC works.  My only gripe is they don't spend enough time on dev for the features I want. 

[robt]

I think the thread starter has a very valid point. I'm quite new to JRiver, probably about 6 months use and I find it confusing and difficult to get my head around. And I am certainly a geek! I think I probably enjoy the complexity but for every geek there must be ten others who just give up after a few minutes.

[tyler69]

I'm just not sure you can have a simple UX and lots of features.

This is how I feel about Photoshop.  I just don't have the desire (or need) to spend the time and effort to work out Photoshop.  MS Paint on the other hand is nice and simple. 

To my mind there are all sorts of simplifications that JR have done with MC to make stuff simple and easy to learn.  Take "Red October" and the work done to make sure that video just plays without having to understand Direct Show Filters.  I'll grant you that the name "Red October" is quirky however

user experience (ux) is not simple or hard. ux can be either bad or good (or something in between). photoshop is an expert software that is meant to be used by professionals. paint, on the other hand, is a software meant to be used by casual users. Differences between those types might be the complexity of the gui, range of functions, naming of functions/tools, the number of mouse clicks you need to do in order to achieve your goal. this might lead to the fact that you have a bad user experience when you use photoshop.
the thing about usability is that it always needs to be measured in the correct context, like user experience. nevertheless, there are gui guidelines that in general benefit all kinds of software, e.g. creating consistent behaviour/look & feel, like astromo pointed out.

[jmone]

MC is Jim's baby.  He loves it.  Calling it clunky is like like saying to your neighbour that their baby is ugly... so I'm not surprised if you get a less than enthusiastic response.  He did open the door asking for more constructive "blue would look good on your baby" type of interaction, but these threads (and they do come up every now and again) always end up the same way with general comments along the lines of "yeah, your baby is ugly ... but smart" without any actual concrete suggestions on how to improve it.  If there are areas where MC falls down on "creating consistent behaviour/look & feel" or how to make it less "confusing and difficult" then I'm sure he will be all ears.

I agree with Tyler69 on the UX but my clumsy point is that like Photoshop, MC is for enthusiasts.  Like Paint suits my casual needs so will many of the free media apps will suit casual users.

[tyler69]

MC is Jim's baby.  He loves it.  Calling it clunky is like like saying to your neighbour that their baby is ugly... so I'm not surprised if you get a less than enthusiastic response.  He did open the door asking for more constructive "blue would look good on your baby" type of interaction, but these threads (and the do come up every now and again) always end up the same way with general comments along the lines of "yeah, your baby is ugly ... but smart" without any actual concrete suggestions on how to improve it.  If there are areas where MC falls down on "creating consistent behaviour/look & feel" or how to make it less "confusing and difficult" then I'm sure he will be all ears.

You mean something like (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,105883.100.html)?:

I summarized the things that come to my mind when using Panel:

1. landing page (Panel) looks nice with the background
2. all other pages look different from the landing page, why not consistent in some way (font, layout, ...) like the settings page?
3. bad looking icons (Album, Artist, Home Icon in the top left...) (see 2)
4. no information about what is currently playing, why not reserving space on top/bottom for playback information (artist, movie, album, duration, ...), maybe even customizable like the info screen on top in MC
5. when browsing albums, it seems there are only so many on one page. why is it necessary to skip "pages" in order to see all albums? they should really be on one page.
6. in tracklist view only titles are shown. why do you not use the remaining space for showing additional information? you could even add links to allmusic, discogs or whatsoever (maybe Panel could read out the metadata of the files played?). this might have potential to be a roon-like interface (with regard to the artist information shown to the user)
7. why is there no easy way to go back to "what is playing now"? i always need to click on "home" in the top left corner. why not make a control panel "sticky" (forward, backwards, volume, ...). maybe together with 4.
8. the volume slider could be worked on (if possible): when dragging it, the latency for the volume to change is quite high, maybe it even changes the volume first when you release the slider?
9. it would be nice to have resizable artwork (maybe like in MC). please take 5 into consideration with this.
10. the possibility of using a tree-like structure next to the usage of icons now implemented for browsing through functions and media might be welcomed by some users
11. why do i need to go through genre or year when browsing (a manually added view in MC) in order to get to the movies? there should probably be options on how browsing through media levels should behave.
12. why is flash player used for video playback? I understand this is a "legacy" technology?
13. more control when playing back video (subtitles, audio stream, ...) would probably benefit the ux
14. why don't you rename the description of the wdm driver from IPC to something like "MC audio" or something not so cryptic.

This definitely has potential, I like the approach but a lot has to be done still (I'm talking exclusively on audio/video functionalities as I do not use the other parts).

EDIT: included 14.

[mattkhan]

this thread has come up at least once per major version since I've used MC & the same sort of comments are made each time.

One strength of MC is that it's more like a toolbox that you can use to put something together that works for your specific purpose. The associated weakness of MC is that it is generally quite hard to know which tools you have or how to use those tools (numerous features are basically documented by an assortment of historic threads in which those features were developed).

It's not obvious to me whether it is possible to fix this without actually investing some people (i.e. not community best efforts) in writing some reasonable docs (i.e. not exhaustive but at least cataloguing the various features of the application and how to use them) and then committing to keeping those broadly current. I tend to think that community maintained use case docs would work quite well on top of such reference docs whereas they don't work well without that foundation to link to (they end up having to describe basic features which gets in the way of what needs to be written).

Since the common complaint is that general commentary is not helpful, I'll give a concrete example of a particular screen that is v powerful but often confusing and/or hard to use, namely dsp studio.

- features overlap in not obvious ways
  - e.g. should I use JRSS subwoofer or room correction (or both) for bass management? 
  - e.g. combining volume levelling and peak level normalise (i.e. this post -> https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,95807.msg660401.html#msg660401)
- distinct features are not clearly segregated
  - e.g. up or down mixing, output format controls both physical output format and the mix target which can leave the user having to manually mix, there are also 3 separate checkboxes that have no explanation on how they work, the wiki page is not helpful (https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Output_Format though if I know to search for mixing instead then https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Mixing is a bit more useful)
- some features are simply a mystery
  - what does subclarity do?
- some bits of the UI are simply unfriendly
  - e.g. the PEQ section has no simple way to import a bunch of settings from something like rephase or rew (or any simple text format) and hence requires a lot of clicks to load up
- some bits of the UI just don't work
  - e.g. you can never quite be sure if a convolver cfg file has loaded and is actually applied because of the way that sub window works and because of the way jriver doesn't reload cfg files properly

In this particular example, nearly all of these issues have workarounds so you can still get the job done, it's hard work though.

[jmone]

You mean something like (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,105883.100.html)?:

Yup .... (though I note you did not get a reply to that post)

[JimH]

Tyler's list isn't bad.  There are some good suggestions.  But there are also some feature requests.

I agree with his comments about consistent fonts and sizes.  These pages have evolved over time and we should go back and tidy them up.

I don't often reply to a "list" post.  I don't have the energy to reply to everything.  I do read them and I do process them.

MC is "our" baby, not mine.  We're always open to suggestions and ways of improving MC, but I have no patience for soap box speeches.  It's easy for a user to make a general statement dismissing some aspect of the program.  It's sometimes hard for us to:

a.  Understand what is being said
b.  Decide if it would be generally acceptable
c.  Find the time to do it
d.  Not break something or fall into a crevice
e.  Sell more players because we took the trouble

And then there is personal taste.  I like Theater View a lot.  The graphics are big and clear.  You may want a flashier look.  That's not me.  Your taste is different, not better or worse, just different.

We could hire a graphic designer and do a makeover, and it might be better for some people, but I'm pretty sure it would be worse for others.  And we might lose some of our clunky consistency.

I don't mind that these issues keep coming up from time to time.  It's healthy for use to have to listen and consider, and it's probably good for you to understand how we think, even if you disagree.

[yannis]

With all due respect,, your team will always be more important for MC than any single user/customer

I don't remember you explaining somewhere if and how you keep a wish list. I've seen over the years that many suggestions are soon implemented. What happens to those that are not? From my experience it seems that they are never revisited. This also discourages participation.

I've helped more than ten friends to try out MC - none technically minded, all music enthusiasts. They all eventually opted out; they could see the power of MC, but couldn't/wouldn't invest in it. Here's an example: someone wanted to append text to Name. I showed him he could easily find out how, searching the forum. He said, "If these 'expressions' are so standard, why don't they have them ready in an 'advanced' menu?" Which is exactly what I had suggested here years ago. And the same goes for popular panes, views etc. I do appreciate MC's empowering us, but I'd rather spend time on my listening, not on MC. It would help you break into an even larger market if you could cater to those needs.

[JimH]

I've cleaned up this thread a little to tone it down and remove some personal remarks.

[JimH]

I don't remember you explaining somewhere if and how you keep a wish list. I've seen over the years that many suggestions are soon implemented. What happens to those that are not? From my experience it seems that they are never revisited. This also discourages participation.

The forum is our way of keeping a wish list.  We receive hundreds of feature requests a year, maybe thousands.  Those that have merit, in our opinion, sometimes are implemented, depending on difficulty and on available time.  Others are driven to the top of the list by popular demand, but some of those we don't do because we have a different opinion.  And then there are some things we do just because we think they are a good idea.

It's not thoroughly democratic, but neither are most democracies.

[JimH]

With respect to friends who purchase MC, I don't have many success stories of my own to report. 

Looking through recent records, I see a number of people answering "friend" to our "Where did you hear about JRiver?" question.  I'd guess it's about 7% of sales.  So it does work sometimes, and we do appreciate it when you try.

[Bill Kearney]

To me MC is the six-foot-wide-Swiss-Army-knife that is unbeatably useful, but not necessarily something I want in my pocket every day.  I'd like to, honestly I would, but there's been any number of 'little things' that just keep getting in the way. 

Likewise I'd very much like to be able to recommend it more, but the UX combined with the steep learning curve make it somewhat difficult. 

It's like the blind men and the elephant parable.  Everyone wants what they perceive to be the animal, but nobody wants/realizes it's an elephant.  Software features are like this.  Each of us wants the snake, the tree, the fan, the wall... etc, but it's still a whole elephant.

Me, I've never really wanted/needed much more than an effective audio media manager.  The video features were never on my list of needs/desires.  Along the way I keep feeling like I ought to try to like the video features more, but found the UX just not something that worked for me.  I'll confess some irritation to see development time spent on features I don't want/need... and even more to see how those, too, don't work for me.  Call me arrogant, short-sighted, or whatever, but I'm a customer (repeat one, no less) and have needs that just keep getting missed.

Meanwhile a lot of the reasons for managing audio media are bypassing reasons for using software like MC.  Streaming, voice control via Alexa, devices with gobs of storage, etc.   But I still have plenty of situations where I'd still like to have better media managing/syncing/networking... and MC is still MUCH closer than anything else.... but still not close enough to be safe to turn it loose with the wife/kids/friends/guests.  This circles back to the 'clunky UX' thread topic.

So I just keep paying for the periodic upgrades and hope one of them will eventually include features that'd work better for me.

[flac.rules]

MC is Jim's baby.  He loves it.  Calling it clunky is like like saying to your neighbour that their baby is ugly... so I'm not surprised if you get a less than enthusiastic response.  He did open the door asking for more constructive "blue would look good on your baby" type of interaction, but these threads (and they do come up every now and again) always end up the same way with general comments along the lines of "yeah, your baby is ugly ... but smart" without any actual concrete suggestions on how to improve it.  If there are areas where MC falls down on "creating consistent behaviour/look & feel" or how to make it less "confusing and difficult" then I'm sure he will be all ears.

I agree with Tyler69 on the UX but my clumsy point is that like Photoshop, MC is for enthusiasts.  Like Paint suits my casual needs so will many of the free media apps will suit casual users.

I think that is a bit unfair, although not all posts have good suggestions, there is a lot of suggestions popping up in the normal threads of the type.

[JimH]

... although not all posts have good suggestions, there is a lot of suggestions popping up in the normal threads of the type.

I agree.  We implement some of them.

[tyler69]

i wonder if it would make sense to have feature requests in a somehow structured way. my suggestion would be to have a feature request forum, where users could post topics with their requests that would be up for discussion. all those threads could be put together in a poll-like list somewhere else (maybe on top of this feature request forum in a sticky thread). people can click on one item of this list which should be linked to the relevant discussion. if the user likes this request, he can add a +1 or something to this item. this list should be sorted by the number of votes.
maybe this would give both users and jriver more transparency on their priorities.

[JimH]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but we like the system we have.  It has a chaotic element that can spin out of control sometimes, but it involves everyone, and we do pay attention to it.  We just don't mindlessly crank out things from a list. 

Important changes tend to bubble up to the top and we do as many as we can.

Interestingly, we've done this for almost 20 years, we've outlasted some stiff competition, and a lot of it was free.

[astromo]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but we like the system we have.  It has a chaotic element that can spin out of control sometimes, but it involves everyone, and we do pay attention to it.  We just don't mindlessly crank out things from a list. 

Important changes tend to bubble up to the top and we do as many as we can.

Interestingly, we've done this for almost 20 years, we've outlasted some stiff competition, and a lot of it was free.

Your comments reminded me of this post from some time back:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=91631.0
I'd go so far as to say, it wouldn't be out of place being included in the JRiver business model thread.

[tyler69]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but we like the system we have.  It has a chaotic element that can spin out of control sometimes, but it involves everyone, and we do pay attention to it.  We just don't mindlessly crank out things from a list. 

Important changes tend to bubble up to the top and we do as many as we can.

Interestingly, we've done this for almost 20 years, we've outlasted some stiff competition, and a lot of it was free.

thanks for replying. it's not about mindlessly cranking things from a list. it's a more structured way of showing what has already been requested/suggested. basically you would go ahead and implement features based on the same workflow you have done until now. with a list implemented like i suggested it would only benefit the transparency (you would know what users want, users would see what is realistic to suggest) and therefore keep the chaotic element more often in control. but that's just imho

[franswilco]

JRiver is awesome software. I find my way around it easily enough. It works well and is very extensive. It's also acceptably priced for the functionality it offers. As a disgruntled iTunes user, I'm very happy with it. That said, I'm a software nut; I teach people how to build websites and teach Adobe software for a living. People who visit these forums go through the trouble of registering and posting, right? My guess is most of us are either software nuts too, or are heavily vested JRiver users.... Or, of course, users who can't get something done... My guess is the JRiver customers who usually visit this forum are already more tech savvy to begin with.

Thing is, I've been on board since version 19 and I notice a trend here at JRiver. Basically two things: Marketing and UI/UX. It seems to me you guys are sometimes quite a bit removed from the average user.

The JRiver website does a poor job promoting the awesome software that is MC and JRemote. It is not very appealing. Just compare it with websites such as Roon, Plex, iTunes, VLC, and others. If it wasn't for these great reviews I read about MC and the great experience I had when running the MC trial software, I wouldn't have thought it was for me. I don't know much about the JRiver company and its customers. I'm pretty sure JRiver rocks for the tech savvy user base and the technical guru's / power users out there. But when it comes down to Plex/iTunes-esque users, JRiver is definitely dropping the ball in the marketing department. Just Google for iTunes / Plex / alternatives or music/video management software. MC rarely shows up on any reviews or forum discussion. You really have to start looking for it, but you don't just stumble across it.

Id: I love the idea. But again (marketing wise) it's pretty much hidden from view except for very tech savvy people. In my mind, the best customers for Id is probably people like my mum and dad. If I was JRiver, I would have devoted an entire website, or at least and entire site section, for the Id.

Engen: Would have never heard about it if I wasn't on this forum... Though it is definitely something I see myself using.

...

Come to think of it, this is actually true for most of the MC functionality. I run across something on the forum or by accident when using the software and go on the forum to read more about it. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't. But the UI IS clunky and old fashioned. The UX IS sub-optimal. The UI shows its age. It's awesome for people like me, but not very attractive for 'normal' users such as my family members or friends. If they were looking for music managing software, I would recommend software such as Roon or Plex. For my web developer students, I would recommend JRiver. Just trying to make a point here, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Panel, JRemote, Gizmo and now KISS... I don't get it. I've said this before but just merge everything into one or two apps! JRemote is for audio, video and Theater mode. Use a Panel app for Engen home automation. Gizmo looks horribly out of date. JRemote is excellent but could use an update here and there. Looking at the number of updates and looking at the forum here, it's pretty clear to me JRemote does not get the love from JRiver it needs/deserves. But let me tell you guys... IMO... that app is your gold. It's a diamond in the rough. It's JRiver's key in getting "regular Joe's" to use MC... Anyway, I'm starting to ramble....

Dear JRiver team, please consider the following friendly requests from a long time and happy user:

- A new website that's more appealing for new users.

- A new MC UI / Skin. More like Roon or what iTunes looked like before it sucked. Take your "audio only" feature a couple of steps further by offering a streamlined layout and an then an advanced layout of sorts for power users. MC could use an intuitive "getting you set-up" feature for first time users. And it really needs some sort of "first time pop-up help screen" for new users to help explain/sell its many features. Hell, I would be happy for it too!

- Better documentation. A Wiki (or this great forum) isn't noob friendly. The wiki is also very out of date and does a poor job selling the great MC features. Create an awesome looking FAQ, along with a number of how to video's. Great "how to video's" will probably also help selling the software. (I know: I had a company for ten years making company video and promotional films)

- Streamline the apps JRemote, Panel, Kiss, Gizmo. I mean come on guys. It's just ridiculous. I'm guessing a lot of development time is getting wasted on these separate apps that for the most part do or try to do the same thing. Kiss could just as well be a simplified JRemote mode. Gizmo is obsolete, period. Panel should focus on Engen and home automation.

- Sell your features better. I KNOW I'm missing out on a lot of great features because I don't understand them or can't be bothered with them. Like the man said: I'm talking about  Play Doctor, Car Radio and many others.

MC is awesome. But it IS the Photoshop of media management software.

[JimH]

Anything else?

[Ashfall]

I have to take a contrary position and go against the idea of spending time simplifying the UX.  Maybe a few tweaks and improvements as needed and justified, but nothing major.  The reason JRiver Media Center stands apart is because of it's deep complexity and ability to continually fine tune, tweak, and customize for your personal preferences.  I've also introduced it to a few friends, and they just didn't have what it takes to dive in and make it their own.  So they just stay with something easy like Plex, or some streaming service, or whatever their smart TV makes available.  I wouldn't want to trade what we have now for something like that.  Your uniqueness is in the complexity and learning curve.  There are no other options for those who want that.  Don't try to be Plex or iTunes, those products already exist.  If JRiver is satisfied with their income stream and customer base, I don't see a reason to specifically try to appeal to less tech-savvy potential customers.

That said, improving contextual help would be a huge improvement.  Currently it links to various Wiki articles, many of which are badly outdated or not helpful.  Maybe start an incentive based crowdsourcing campaign to have the user base improve the Wiki articles?  I don't know if the effort to manage that would be less than doing it yourself.

Also, responding to or closing out feature/bug requests.  I think many of us have run a search on a problem, only to find one or more unanswered posts from multiple years ago about it.  Or posted a bugfix or feature request and never received a response.  Even a negative response such as "we know it's a problem but don't want to fix it" would be welcome (at least for me).  I worked tech support for years, and still get dragged into that from time to time to help out, so I understand that the customer is not always right (to put it nicely), so it's a tough area to deal with.  But some sort of issue tracker, where issues are closed for a documented reason would be a great improvement.  There are some bugs and annoyances that have been around for 5+ years, and get a new thread every year or two but maybe don't affect enough customers to become a priority at the time.  Issue trackers might help bring focus to the dev team, and also provide a portal for the customers to see what's currently being worked on as a priority, what's on the back burner for when things slow down a bit, and what's just not going to happen for whatever reason.  I think it would save you time in the long run.

Even if none of these or others' suggestions are taken, rest assured that JRiver Media Center is still the best media management software available, and your customer service overall is already impressive.

[jkauff]

As a professional UX Designer with 25 years experience, I can assure you it would be well worth spending the money to hire a UX professional on a two-month contract. You need someone who can perform an expert (sometimes called "heuristic") review of MC, as well as doing user research with existing and potential customers, suggesting a couple of approaches for an update, and wireframing out the best solutions. The UX person should also be able to create some prototypes that can be used in either formal or informal usability testing.

Improving the UX of an application as huge and complex as MC is going to take time and expertise. As a result, however, I think you'll sell many more licenses in the future.

[JimH]

I feel like I'm coming down with the Chicken Pox.

I'm pleased to learn that it's used by so many UX experts.  If I thought UX was the biggest obstacle to fame and stardom, I might hire someone and hope they knew more than we do.  MC is a big, powerful program, with lots of corners.  If that was so unappealing, I think we'd have no customers.

I personally find it very disappointing when Microsoft moves the pieces of networking around and everything I learned has to be learned all over again.

I'm not offended if you want to call it the Photoshop of media players.

For all of the general grumbling, I'm still not seeing many specific suggestions.

[DeaneG]

... MC is a big, powerful program, with lots of corners.  If that was so unappealing, I think we'd have no customers.

It's a matter of degree rather than all or nothing. Adobe considerably broadened its customer base by shipping a simplified Photoshop Elements.

After a couple of years of using Media Center, I have no idea what the following do, and have not found the time to dig though old Wiki entries to find out: Panel, Kiss, Gizmo, Play Doctor, Car Radio, Radio Kiss, Zones. I have tried using JRemote on an Android tablet but the user interface is not intuitive for me, and I don't use it often enough to remember how I was able, at least once, to select all of my music and play it in shuffle mode.

A concrete suggestion: improve the theater mode UI for listening to music, watching TV, and videos. In the past I also have doubted the utility of hiring a UI expert, but have since seen the light. The benefits are long-term.

[tyler69]

two examples:
1. "Import" is available on tools->import and on file->library->import. I think it is enough for this function to be in one place. usually tasks with importing/opening files are under the "file" tab, so it's redundant under "tools" and may confuse users.

2. if there's only one single item (e.g. "manage links") you shouldn't hide it behind a folder (e.g. "links")

for panel i already have mentioned some specific points as well as for the tv ui.

[mattkhan]

For all of the general grumbling, I'm still not seeing many specific suggestions.

There are at least two ways to look this. One is that these forums are littered with specific suggestions for the UI(s). Another is that specific suggestions are part of the problem, i.e one underlying issue is the overall ethos of the UI(s).

On that note, if it were me the thing I would invest in is making MC just work (as much as that is ever possible) in the whole home (multi client, multi os, multi device). This is a prerequisite for anyone other than me using it in my house so that is where my vote for UX money goes.

[JimH]

There are at least two ways to look this. One is that these forums are littered with specific suggestions for the UI(s). Another is that specific suggestions are part of the problem, i.e one underlying issue is the overall ethos of the UI(s).

On that note, if it were me the thing I would invest in is making MC just work (as much as that is ever possible) in the whole home (multi client, multi os, multi device). This is a prerequisite for anyone other than me using it in my house so that is where my vote for UX money goes.

If I understand what you mean, I agree.  I view MC as the core engine that drives a set of viewing/listening devices, which are often controlled by a remote.  I think we're headed toward a HTML5 solutions for that.

[JookieCola]

As a professional UX Designer with 25 years experience, I can assure you it would be well worth spending the money to hire a UX professional on a two-month contract. You need someone who can perform an expert (sometimes called "heuristic") review of MC, as well as doing user research with existing and potential customers, suggesting a couple of approaches for an update, and wireframing out the best solutions. The UX person should also be able to create some prototypes that can be used in either formal or informal usability testing.

Improving the UX of an application as huge and complex as MC is going to take time and expertise. As a result, however, I think you'll sell many more licenses in the future.

I have to agree completely with jkauff.  I have been enjoying JRiver's work since Media Jukebox 8 in 2005.  I love the quality, but... usability and interface have not really changed (from what I can remember) since at least 2005.  A lot has changed since then... And with the utmost respect, I have to admit I thought it was pretty terrible then.  I mean, we've been together for twelve years now, and I feel like I can't even take you out anymore     

Relatively, it would take a small fraction of the time to improve the ux and would be a very welcome and pleasant improvement.  Media center would almost certainly get more users, but that isn't really the point for anyone reading this I would guess.  I would like to see it done just because I use it, and will continue to use it.  For me, being an audiophile is not just about the sound, visuals help round out the experience.

But, it is what it is...

As Mouse so eloquently stated,"It doesn't have everything the body needs..."

[Spike1000]

Any specific advice on the UX?

IMHO I don't think the UX will ever change. Forum members can (and do) make suggestions but they are little tweaks at best or JRiver don't wish to implement. Reminds me a bit of re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Hypothetically if a forum member happened to be a world leading UX expert and spent a week redesigning the UX and offered it to JRiver free of charge I have no doubt they'd still not change it as they don't want to change it. And that's fine with me. I've documented and posted the things I need to change so I can find them relatively quickly.

My specific advice, which you may have missed, was to produce some walk through videos to help people navigate through the existing interface. Much quicker that updating 100s pages of documentation, more accessible to more people and a way of getting JRiver's name out there. This would generate more customers and earn more revenue; but I'm not sure if JRiver are interested in that, they seem more than content with where they are and aren't looking to extend their user base to significant numbers of less tech-savvy people. There are many features in MC that I don't use as I simply don't know they exist or haven't invested the man hours to learn from scratch (home theatre interface, good ways to control MC with an infrared device, how to integrate (or not) YouTube into MC and control it from within MC, Engen, Ids, the new HTML 5 interface thing, . . to name but a few). I learned more about MC from a 15 minute video on the Computer Audio Forum (I think) than from days of reading the forum/wiki. A picture being worth a 1000 words (a moving one even more!) and all that. It was a live screen capture so it would have taken all of 15 minutes to make and a few more to upload!

Maybe you could incentivise some of the beta testers/top forum guys (and girls) to do video walk throughs of their systems and talk about their configuration philosophy and the features they use and how. It doesn't appear that anything will be coming from JRiver anytime soon (unless the summer intern is looking for something to do. . ..)

Again just my 2p.

Spike

[Awesome Donkey]

I honestly don't see what's so wrong with the UI, especially after choosing the right skin (Modern Cards in my case, which looks pretty native on Windows 10). Unless I'm missing something? Jim's right, these topics come up without giving a lot of specific suggestions. I think mockup examples and screenshots of proposed changes would go a long way here. Just saying the UI looks bad isn't good enough, IMO. Some, like me, would disagree with this - and I've seen way, way worse UIs!

Documentation (or lack thereof in some cases) is an issue, yes. Actually, I'd say it's the top issue which IMO is more important than UI tweaks. If I had more time, I'd volunteer to at least write/port some tutorials and stuff regarding MC for Linux and Mac to the wiki.

Here's an idea (or specific suggestion if you want to call it that), instead of hiring some "UI expert", hire somebody good at organization, research and writing tutorials to write/change/update the wiki articles. I think this would go a much longer way with potential and existing customers than having a "flashy, new UI". In addition, once new wiki articles are added Matt or one of the other dev team members can put a little ? icon to features/settings which launches a web browser window to the related wiki article to explain how the feature works.

[tyler69]

well, there are several things that can be optimised on the ui. you can find (specific) suggestions all over the place. it's not only about how it looks so using a prettier skin does not cover all ui issues. when suggestions or ideas do not even get a reply or jriver says "we've been doing it like it is for x years, why change?", how motivated / how long do you think people will make suggestions (or even create mockups) for jriver?
i myself sometimes make suggestions on how to optimise the ui but in my personal opinion, assuring that these topics are covered should be mainly jrivers problem, not the user's.

i like your idea about the linking to relevant wiki articles though. also tooltips when hovering over a button would be good in my opinion.

[BryanC]

MC needs a comprehensive LaTeX-formatted manual. I agree that the legacy and stability of MC's UI is a strength, but this continuity can be leveraged to create a more eloquent and permanent form of documentation as opposed to the current wiki.

Let's use an example here: I always have to consult the wiki when I want to start editing library views since it's something I rarely do and haven't committed to memory.

So I go to the wiki and search for "Library Views." This gives me 65 results. The result I think I'm interested in is titled View Schemes and is #9 on the list (which I have to scroll down to find). If I wasn't familiar with the program I doubt I would even find it. I click into view schemes and am presented with images from MC12 that don't match what I see in Library View. I see about 6 images concerning "Panes" and "Trees." I then realize I'm not even looking at Library Views at all. I'm lost.

So I go back to the wiki search and globalize my search parameter to "Views". The #4 result is something called Standard Media Views. Yes, that's what I want! So I click into it and it tell me the information is outdated and I should refer to the "View Schemes" page I was just on instead. The "More" section contains links to the MC13 view schemes guide, the MC17 view schemes guide, and a couple of unrelated topics. So I'm still lost.

After several more searches I find myself on Customize List and/or Thumbnail View. It sort of resembles what I want, but the information is not in-depth and contains several dead links to pages that don't exist. I'm still lost.

Finally I go back and search for "custom views" and wind up on Add a custom view scheme group to Media Center's tree. Well that just looks like a hack to be able to show all media formats in a single scheme. I'm still lost.

...and so on and so forth until I give up.

Something as basic as creating library views needs a discrete section in a manual, linking to other discrete sections (like the MC expression language) when necessary. If the MC devs like the wiki for its collaborative properties, the same thing can be accomplished with LaTeX and a git repo.

[Manfred]

Usability falls for me into two categories:

• Design - UI Experience - tickle my emotions
• Usage of the functions MC provides

Regarding Design - UI Experience: Using one of the Modern Card Skins for Standard View looks for me pretty nice. JRemote UI Experience is for me fantastic. Same Theatre View.

Usage of the functions MC provides:
- e.g. If you want to know which fields are filled by Get Movie & TV Info - not so easy.
- If you want to configure the Views for JRemote, Theatre View & Standard view - it requires some reading - it was for me not out of the box.
- Some Checker functions sometimes would also be welcome, e.g. have I tagged my classical music according to best practices and let MC make a suggestion and correction (after asking me  ).

It's manageable - and I love MC - but some Wizards would sometimes be welcome!

[yannis]

Re the UI, I do like the fact that MC manages to extend its capabilities retaining a simple facade over the years. That said, I think the skins are mostly dated. Not a dealbreaker for me, but eyecandy does help selling.

I think the main problem is a confusion over the user base. There are tech savvy users who will take the time and effort to dig in, or who will go to the forum (provided they do speak some english) to search. (The wiki way is hopeless, BryanC above nailed it.) Then there are the noobs, who can easily get around the basic functions - my six year old son can work his way to his vids and play them at will. Some simple things are missing, (a visible sorting button for one), but all in all it's ok.

So the main drag is with the intermediate users (me included); the ones who'd like to do something "advanced" but, for any reason, find the learning curve too steep. For them, the dual character of MC is more obvious: they will try to fiddle with the player "part", to get the most out of it or for the sheer fun of it, and they will also invest in the "library manager" part. There, I think the readymade playlists were a great tool that also facilitates learning; but my suggestions that more of that is offered in panes, views and functions was overlooked. Also, MC welcomes experimentation, but we all know of mistakes that costed a lot (or could have) because of incorrect assumptions (either of the user or of the developers). Obviously, some kind of contextual help would be key here; clarifying or caution messages even more so. Lastly, I find maintaining the library to be the most important part, and that's where I'd expect to see more changes, esp. in the video section. But generally speaking, it's over this broad category of users that MC needs some rethinking.

I can see how difficult these are to implement cost-wise. But would they pay for themselves? Eycandy, I think, very soon (having recently tried Amazon Prime Video, I was pleasantly surprised by the player and I would like to see some steps to that direction). "Help and support" features inside the app? Rather slowly, as they cater to those already sold to MC - but they would help strengthening the user allegiance and need to update.

[mattkhan]

If I understand what you mean, I agree.  I view MC as the core engine that drives a set of viewing/listening devices, which are often controlled by a remote.  I think we're headed toward a HTML5 solutions for that.

Yes that is certainly one part of it, it is not enough on its own though. As it stands, and in my experience, MC is too brittle to be used in a network setup by non technical people so the other big part is the robustness/reliability of the experience.

 Off the top of my head this covers things like ; playback sync across devices, clients that can wake up a server without a restart, unambiguous zone selection (I have had numerous issues of things playing back in the wrong place and assorted fiddling with MC server/client options), better separation of client and server functionality, closer feature parity between windows and Linux/Mac, better client side error handling when things do go wrong (atm you invariably have to login to the server to work out what is going on, a web admin UI would be a useful thing, i.e. one that just surfaces information about the activity in the network).

 A cleaner, more consistent (restful), API would be a nice thing to add too. MCWS is pretty hard to use IME.

[JimH]

I agree with a lot of what you listed.  We're working on some of it.

playback sync across devices

I agree.  It's difficult when devices are different.  But I agree.

clients that can wake up a server without a restart,

I suppose you know about Wake On LAN.  It's not easy to set up sometimes.  There are places we could do better.

unambiguous zone selection (I have had numerous issues of things playing back in the wrong place and assorted fiddling with MC server/client options)

Probably user error.  Sorry.

better separation of client and server functionality

Been discussed, if I understand what you're saying.  Won't happen.

closer feature parity between windows and Linux/Mac

We're relentlessly pursuing this, as you probably know.  Theater View was recently added, for example.

better client side error handling when things do go wrong (atm you invariably have to login to the server to work out what is going on, a web admin UI would be a useful thing, i.e. one that just surfaces information about the activity in the network).

We have built some of that into the Id interface.  You can reboot a machine from a browser, for example.

A cleaner, more consistent (restful), API would be a nice thing to add too. MCWS is pretty hard to use IME.

Hard to use, maybe, not impossible.  It's programming.  JRemote and eos were built on it.  Lots of other software has used it.

[mattkhan]

Been discussed, if I understand what you're saying.  Won't happen.

I should have worded this differently. I would very much like them to be completely separate (and the server to be available in linux form) but I realise that is not going to happen. However in this case all I mean is allowing the client to do more of the things that currently only the server can do as this would make it easier to live with the current setup. The most obvious example that springs to mind (of a feature that only the server can do) is convert format. Another, sort of related, example would be some way to remotely manage/distribute views.

We have built some of that into the Id interface.  You can reboot a machine from a browser, for example.

do you plan to extend that sort of functionality beyond the Id? I think it would be useful, perhaps not so much rebooting the machine itself but being able to remotely control the service/application via a UI. Basically a Radio KISS for the administrator.

Hard to use, maybe, not impossible.  It's programming.  JRemote and eos were built on it.  Lots of other software has used it.

I agree it's powerful and it's not impossible to use by any means but the documentation is not so clear and the endpoints are quite heavily overloaded with options. A simpler, cleaner set of endpoints would reduce the need for such docs because they'd be largely self documenting. Returning JSON would also be generally friendlier/easy to handle than XML. Of course this is just this particular developer's opinion driven by the sort of languages I'd be likely to want to access MCWS from.

I suppose you know about Wake On LAN.  It's not easy to set up sometimes.  There are places we could do better.

fwiw I was specifically referring to the fact that a client won't wake up the server from sleep without restarting the client, i.e.

start a client
time passes
server goes to sleep
attempt to play something in client
server won't wake up, you get the standard error message about not being able to start playback

end result is that you basically have to run the server 24/7 otherwise things fail to work for not immediately obvious reasons

[MikeO]

Hi

Flexibility of configuration doesn't come without some effort

I have tried all sorts over the years, I have a simple test ... show me in one view all my recordings of Beethoven Moonlight Sonata so I can pick one (of probably 25 !!)

So far only MC has managed it. Thanks to the ability to fine tune views , plus working on custom tags etc.

The closest seconds simply don't allow tweaking which prevents the result.

The UI may be older looking than the sexy Plex and Roon ones but it all depends how you use it.

I use JRemote for listening which is equal to any of the sexy ones. I use MC proper mostly for maintenance.

When I used MC to render I used theatre view . Non techies still managed to navigate with a remote control

I personally prefer to fine tune a view for me and get what I want

I still hanker after the sexy Roon look but for classical music it's down right hard work, my hard work has gone into tagging and views

My 2 penneth

Mike

[~OHM~]

I've been avoiding this but....As far UI/UX goes I see no problem with the looks, you can hide all sorts of things, It's skinable, lots of various skins to choose from. Now I only use MC for music playback (I'm the only one that uses MC for movies) and only use standard views. I use Plex for movie playback, it's Included with the NAS and the grands can manipulate it. So all you naysayers go and buy your fancy Roon and pay twice as much for something you don't even own! let the games begin!

[tyler69]

i think there should be a common understanding about what ux means. some interesting remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdtGjoIN4E

[~OHM~]

ya it means user experience