We have benefitted greatly from the advice of many users on every aspect of the program, including the interface.
I'm sorry you feel otherwise. My impression of your posts is that you are often critical, but rarely provide details we can use. Perhaps I've overlooked something.
Since I'm keenly aware what I write and how, sometimes I ask myself too, if it doesn't come off as overtly critical for the sake of rhetoric only. However the problem is a bit more complicated, since there are... extenuating circumstances, as in this discussion going on for years, and also that I don't understand most of your strategy for Theater View (may it be just me), and the part I understand - I disagree with.
Sometimes back I came up with this mockup (post
here)
and that was just on a whim, just Photoshop work, not trying to be original. That was almost 2 years ago.
Then I did
Galaxy, which at the time was entirely just a play with color alone. To this day it's still the most... colorful attempt in my book, to do something with Theater View, but I'm biased for obvious reasons and since I took a break from visiting here, I might've missed something new. You guys did something in MC15 to break further skin compatibility, and although on my home system I fixed it, I never published a fix because I don't know how I fixed it. Throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks - that is what I did, 'cause that echoes well enough the documentation on Theater View skinning and the changes its engine went though.
From my experience at the time - since you wondered about specifics - I remember struggling with reused graphical elements (especially the navigational highlight) and wrapping everything in my skin files so I can distribute it. Having common settings for all skins in one file seems backwards to me, if I change that file I affect all skins, not just mine. Seemed at the time that somebody never even considered that some other people may start writing their own skins.
This may come off as just me saying so, since there is no proof - but I had planned to design a new skin - Universe - if skinning was actually developed into a complete framework. Something that would rival and surpass XBMC. I was willing to work on it 3-6 months. The occasion never presented itself so I moved on.
So yes, I'm a die-hard XBMC user now. The flipside of that is that I'm very much aware how MC can be overall better then XBMC. It just seems that you guys don't want to go there. Understandably from a certain angle, the development strategy differs significantly, but not so much from other - a skinable interface should boost the look and feel of the MC generically, regardless if it competes with XBMC or not.
The guy above was right. In MC we want something of XBMC. In XBMC we want something of MC. That is a truth outside of anybody's agenda. In XBMC stuff is designed with flavor and bigger-than-life graphical interfaces and scripts; they dream orange when they fly over Mars. In MC stuff is made with terrific database speed & flexibility, and great audio development. I know you're working and I know they're working on improving. Coincidentally I know in broad strokes some of their plans for their next version, and some for the version after that. I know nothing here. It seems too great a divide right now. But, 2-3 years back, even if in my make-a-lot-of-noise style, I asked here first.
Author
Topic: XBMC to JRiver - Biography/Album Review suggestion for Theatre View (Read 29419 times)