Print

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

[darichman]

There have been some good changes in relation to viewing files in theatre view, and I know customisation of the file info panel for theatre view is in the works.

I just had a few questions/comments about how all of this might come together, with particular focus on movies.
I think there are two levels at which we want to see information, and no single model can work well with both:

Browsing files - At the moment, the files (whether a list or thumbnails) are on the left half of the screen, while the right side is broken up into art (on the top) and information (on the bottom). Some have commented this isn't much room to display much information (if you have more than a couple of fields filled out you need to do a lot of scrolling - it isn't all that user friendly and ends up looking a bit messy). Also, it has been noted that the need for clicking/hitting enter on a file is just one extra unnecessary step when this info could be displayed simply on selection. Furthermore, the coverart appears twice if we're using thumbnails in the scroll list. I think this method of browsing is better suited to file lists (eg individual song names etc) rather than thumbnails.

Proposed alternative model: Rather than scrolling up and down a grid-like view of thumbnails, with art and info squished on the right, we could scroll left-right across a coverflow-style view, with basic metadata displayed at the bottom. Such a view allows you to see a few movies to the left and right, but the focus is on the selection. You have a basic 3D view which hasn't really been properly integrated into the program thus far... this could be extended to accommodate just a single row of movie posters, for example, with information like Year, Director, Genres and maybe Tag Line underneath. Once the user has seen the poster and this basic information, they may ask for...

More details please - So I have paused over a file, had a cursory glance at the basic metadata available in the file info panel. Now I want to see more about the file - synopsis, reviews, extended metadata etc. There is no mechanism for this anywhere in MC at the moment, unless we open the Tag AW which isn't really appropriate for theatre view. The file info panel is too small to show this stuff in any meaningful/useful way. What I think could be really beneficial here is an "Information Card" for the item. The card would contain the poster/coverart and fields/information for the file in question (customisable per view scheme maybe) and would take up the entire screen. Anyone who has used PVD will know what I mean. Maybe this could be useful in standard view as well (right click on file: show Information Card) to get a detailed summary of all the relevant information related to the file. Think track info - but fully customisable from MC itself and available outside of playback as well. [Note: We can't use track info plugins with video]

I don't know if anyone's aware of the PvdImport plugin raldo is developing, but it's almost finished and will allow MC to import tons of information for our movie/tv shows. All that remains is for MC to catch up a bit and provide some useful ways of accessing and displaying the data.

Another point worth making is the status of skin development/supoort for theatre view. I've never tried (and have a lot of respect and gratitude to those who have), but Daydream made a very good post here. Users have very little control over the interface and much of the documentation is old or no longer relevant. When you look at competitors like xbmc and media portal, much of their cool functionality/slick design has come from user generated skins. Have a look at Aeon... Some screens: 1 / 2. None of these programs have anywhere near the organisation capacity of MC but, without wanting to sound too critical, the info panel we have in MC does not compete. Spending a bit of time making things easier for skinners and plugin developers can only help the program and its user base grow.

One final consideration... MC14 is in development - I think it would be a very good idea to have something which really stands out visually from MC13... you do, afterall, need to persuade the user that an upgrade is worth their money - and, keep in mind, there are free alternatives out there which offer both of the suggestions proposed above.

[)p(]

Browsing files - At the moment, the files (whether a list or thumbnails) are on the left half of the screen, while the right side is broken up into art (on the top) and information (on the bottom). Some have commented this isn't much room to display much information (if you have more than a couple of fields filled out you need to do a lot of scrolling - it isn't all that user friendly and ends up looking a bit messy). Also, it has been noted that the need for clicking/hitting enter on a file is just one extra unnecessary step when this info could be displayed simply on selection. Furthermore, the coverart appears twice if we're using thumbnails in the scroll list. I think this method of browsing is better suited to file lists (eg individual song names etc) rather than thumbnails.

Proposed alternative model:

I disagree. I really like how the current last level works. I dont use thumbnails with it though...I use the name with small thumbnail. For name I show the title - rating - duration. When scrolling this list it would look not so good and be a little distracting if the details would be shown in the right info panel. I only want occasionally to see the detailed info in the panel to check if that is really the kind of movie I want to see now.

Your alternative model sounds cool. I just hope it will be implemented as an ALTERNATIVE. The current combination of lineup views for filtering down and last level detail view with the right info panel work really well for me as a consistent gui for all my media types in theater view. I know about aeon etc. They look good but are just not as functional to me...

Yes a fullscreen fully customizable info screen would be great addition.

peter

[MrHaugen]

I don't like to click each title to get the info either. Just seems like a lot of extra work to push those buttons every time.

When it comes to the alternativte way of browsing I have to agree with )p(. I's a good idea, but should be implemented as an alternative. In other words, View as Details, Thumbnais or 3D Browsing. The 3D browsing could be implemented for theater view other places as well. It's a shame it's just in normal view, as I never use it for anything except editing.

What I love about this is the Full Screen info you're talking about. If the small details was shown on each title change, a simple enter on a Fullscreen button on the info pane could have brought up a fullscreen. This screen could again be scrollable with the arrow keys, and a simple enter could exit the page. Played from normal Theater View info panel. This would make the experience very similar to an almost fullscreen video library app like DVDprofiler, where you have all the info you'll ever need to see.

[gappie]

The 3D browsing could be implemented for theater view other places as well. It's a shame it's just in normal view, as I never use it for anything except editing.

make a new view in thv and give it the name: showroom. that gives 3d browsing the same way as in standard view.

 
gab

[Daydream]

I disagree. I really like how the current last level works. I dont use thumbnails with it though...

We'll stop right here and reconvene when you do . Or, just the same, we can go (well I can go...) into a long debate about what a theater view interface is and why is it also called a 10-foot interface.

Yes a fullscreen fully customizable info screen would be great addition.

That is THE thing. JRiver with all their mighty skills won't ever be able to pick (and lock) an interface for Theater View. They may spearhead a concept, encourage a style, a direction, but the moment a feature is locked there'll be 50 guys screaming they want exactly that. To everybody that asked in many threads for one feature or another I would tell them they were actually asking for unlimited skinning options. If you want something in a certain place - put it there; if not, take it out.

In general, my opinion is there are 3 steps (provided your collection is in place): 1) metadata aggregation (in progress, by MC alone, by plugins like raldo's, etc); 2) organizing it (MC rules supreme) 3) presenting it (we're a bit lost here, we have more info then we can show, we can't put a face to it).

And there's one other little thing. Designing interfaces it's not what - wild guess - most people are used to. You can throw Photoshop and xml skills at it and in the end it won't come together. It's rather kind of an art, in an abrupt departure from whatever else we're doing in here (how many skin related threads are around?). We're aiming for an (HD)TV screen, so flat out there will never be enough space to put on screen all the things you want, like you'd do in any other part of MC. It just doesn't work, unless one goes super hi-vision. And the design choices how to bring certain elements around are rather subjective, just as it was the vision of whoever designed the interface/skin. That's why we need a lot of them not just 5-6.

That's why we also need to bring this out of the secret cookbook of how to make a skin. Especially since there is some work to do on both sides, devs and us. Navigation, behavior of elements which are not in sync, there's a zillion of things to consider. To debate.

That's why I agree with Darichman, both strictly technical and from a creative POV. We need more and if at all possible, sooner than later. Because the way I see it, if active development is gonna happen on the skin side, the skins' definition files will change rather drastically, leaving at best some questionable compatibility with any present efforts.

It's pretty transparent that this is my main interest in MC14. I hope to see we're making much needed progress on this subject.

[)p(]

We'll stop right here and reconvene when you do . Or, just the same, we can go (well I can go...) into a long debate about what a theater view interface is and why is it also called a 10-foot interface.

Huh...may not be your choice...but the lines with name + small thumbnail on the left side are perfectly readable on our theaterview setup...3 meters wide projection screen helps and I am sure more people use theaterview like this instead of only thumbs...each their own though...I just gave my reasons why I like the current implementation with not changing/showing the file info pane details on the right while scrolling through the list. I know that is not the popular opinion from pas threads about this...thats why I thought it was good to let it be known that some of us do agree with the way jriver has implemented it.

peter

[Daydream]

It was all meant in good humor . Actually it perfectly illustrates that especially for MC, with it's abundance of metadata and (possible) views schemes, it's going to be particularly difficult to satisfy everybody, even more so than for other MC programs.

[)p(]

It was all meant in good humor . Actually it perfectly illustrates that especially for MC, with it's abundance of metadata and (possible) views schemes, it's going to be particularly difficult to satisfy everybody, even more so than for other MC programs.

I 100% agree with your stance that theaterview needs to be 100% skinnable and properly documented. This should imho be given the highest priority...I dont think from what we have seen with mc13's focuses theaterview efforts that jrmc has the resources to do this all by themselves...so provide the tools...

peter

[rick.ca]

It's pretty transparent that this is my main interest in MC14. I hope to see we're making much needed progress on this subject.

I don't disagree, but I don't share your passion either. I'm more concerned about the lack of basic functionality right now—the ability to review video meta data in any practical way. I believe if we had that, it would drive interest in skin development.

What I thought we'd have by now is a additional video information panel—for whole-screen viewing of information for one file at a time. It could have a simple configuration facility—similar to, and probably part of, the existing Theater View configuration—where fields and their order of presentation would be specified. I imagine the result as a single scrollable screen that would accommodate whatever amount of information there was, along with a cover in a fixed position. Maybe the configuration could also allow for "locking" fields at the top (or beside the cover) and bottom of the screen, so only the "unlocked" fields between them would scroll. While in this information panel, left/right scrolling would display the previous/next files in the list. It's not difficult to imagine something very simple, but still highly configurable.

If we had such a thing, then everyone with video data (and that could be everyone, thanks to raldo and PVD ) would have the means to use it. Yes, you could call it "crude." But it would be functional, and I think it would generate interest and feedback to the skinning initiative. So my main interest is that users be provided some means of using such information ASAP.

[Daydream]

What I thought we'd have by now is a additional video information panel—for whole-screen viewing of information for one file at a time.

Hmm; interesting. I hope I understood you right, and I agree with your main point.
If MC will have a new (close to) whole screen view, in the classic interface, to facilitate video tagging/reviewing, that would mean a departure from the current view schemes that treat pretty much everything the same way as it does for audio files (which is bad for video files and to some degree for pictures). I would be pro such a change but I'm not too sure that it'll happen.

On the other hand I would argue against bringing any feature relating to tagging in the Theater view interface. I would even suggest to strip the current ones. As a concept, Theater view is something that should be controlled with the remote alone and we should stop the tendency to bring database editing features in every corner of the program. From a technical point of view, if more tagging are brought over in Theater View I can already foresee major headaches going forward and developing the interface/skin because one will have to account for an impossible number of variables that will need to be displayed once the door is open. Just my take.

As a 2-step approach (compromises, compromises...) I'd say detach the tagging function from where it is right now for everything, and give it more room, vertically (on the right side), or in any other way that works for the purpose intended (it'll serve both for tagging and generally viewing details). It could be turn on and off, make it slide in and out, it won't take space unless one wants to use it. If this idea has potential it can develop latter into something bigger. At any rate it needs to be acknowledged that tagging has grown way above the space it has allotted in the current interface.

[rick.ca]

I would be pro such a change but I'm not too sure that it'll happen.

I don't see why not. It's obviously essential for things like full credits and reviews, and these things are important to many of us for movies. I don't see why it shouldn't be for music too, other than the fact people are used to not having it. I sometimes enjoy reading artist bios, reviews, historical notes, etc. as I'm listening to music. I'm not sure I would go to the trouble to collect information that is so nicely presented on many websites, but I'm sure others would—the same way I do for movies. It's a little harder to imagine for images, but I'm sure others have applications there as well (e.g., a digital art collection).

Besides, it's hardly a disruptive change. It would simply be an additional optional "level" in the current browsing model. If configured for the items at hand, you would be able to go from the "file list" level to the "file information" level for any selected file. If not configured, browsing would end at the file list level as it does now. I'm not a programmer, so there's absolutely no chance of explaining to me that's complicated or difficult to implement.

On the other hand I would argue against bringing any feature relating to tagging in the Theater view interface.

I have no interest in tagging in Theater View. Although I don't understand the necessity, I don't begrudge others the capability. But if it does get in the way of the primary purpose, I would agree with you. It's also a little annoying seeing extraneous things like CD ripping and burning being added when we still don't have the ability to view movie information. "No, I have no idea what this movie is about... But I can burn you a CD!"

As a 2-step approach (compromises, compromises...) I'd say detach the tagging function from where it is right now for everything, and give it more room, vertically (on the right side), or in any other way that works for the purpose intended (it'll serve both for tagging and generally viewing details).

I'd be concerned about tagging considerations compromising viewing details. How about this 2-step approach: 1) Make it 100% functional for all types of information viewing users may want to do. 2) add the frills later.