Print

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

[NickF]

As the title says, what is the rationale for putting TV under the menu option Drives & Devices.  As far as a user is concerned, this makes absolutely no sense.  We have other menu options like Audio, Images and Video which are the types of media we want to play.  So surely TV is another type of media we want to play, as is Radio.  I suppose one could argue that TV is another form of video and Radio is another form of Audio.  I don't think I would support that as a solution.  We already have Connected media under Audio which I don't really like.   Both TV and Radio are different in that they are live.  Audio and Video are generally files and are handled entirely differently.  Recorded TV might well fit under Video but I think there is logic in keeping all TV together, Live and Recorded.  All Radio, irrespective of source, should be together.  I just want to choose the channel.  I don't want to have to remember what medium it is carried over and where to find that in the menus.

Can I make a plea to get this changed to a more logical menu structure.  And inferred in this is a request to get TV and Radio separated.

Nick.

[Matt]

In my opinion Television should go under Video in Standard View, like in Theater View.

[NickF]

In my opinion Television should go under Video in Standard View, like in Theater View.

Better than where it is now!

What are your thoughts on Radio, Matt?

Nick.

[MrHaugen]

In my opinion Television should go under Video in Standard View, like in Theater View.

Agreed. It's a much better place. As sub view of video. The same goes for Radio which is better to put under audio.

[nwboater]

In my opinion Television should go under Video in Standard View, like in Theater View.

Much mo betta!

I think being under Drives & Devices is one of those examples of something being logical to a programmer, but not to an end user. So thanks for considering the good change.

Rod

[Sandy B Ridge]

In my opinion Television should go under Video in Standard View, like in Theater View.

Yup!

The same goes for Radio which is better to put under audio.

Yup!

SBR

[JustinChase]

I wonder...

while you're changing this, would it be easy/possible to tie the tree structure to the TheaterView structure.  In other words, if they were mimics of one another, and I think TV should be a Main/Top level item, I'd like to change it in one place (tree), and have it reflected in the other (TheaterView).  Or, change in TheaterView reflected in the tree, since I can't currently change the tree at this level.

I just figure if I want to structure my viewing a particular way, I usually want everything structured the same way, and this just keeps it in sync easier

[NickF]

I wonder...

while you're changing this, would it be easy/possible to tie the tree structure to the TheaterView structure.  In other words, if they were mimics of one another, and I think TV should be a Main/Top level item, I'd like to change it in one place (tree), and have it reflected in the other (TheaterView).  Or, change in TheaterView reflected in the tree, since I can't currently change the tree at this level.

I just figure if I want to structure my viewing a particular way, I usually want everything structured the same way, and this just keeps it in sync easier

Agreed.

Nick.

[rick.ca]

would it be easy/possible to tie the tree structure to the TheaterView structure.

I don't think it's feasible, but many of us couldn't tolerate such a change anyway. Theatre View is already awkward enough to configure without arbitrarily binding it to another view.

[JustinChase]

Theatre View is already awkward enough to configure without arbitrarily binding it to another view.

That's why I suggested it, as moving things around in the tree is often more simple than in the options for Theater View.

I'm not sure I would catagorize it as "arbitrarily" either.

Finally, like everything, optional is best   (Apply change to Theater View (tree)? yes/no)

[rick.ca]

Finally, like everything, optional is best

No, not everything should be optional. If you intended to suggest an option, you should have said so. As a non-optional change, it would be arbitrary and contrary to the interests of most users.

[JustinChase]

I think we both know that JRiver will do whatever they think is best, whether or not I specify my desire for it to optional or not.

I disagree this is arbitrary, based on the definition of the word...

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective:   

    1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
    2. (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

JRiver would obviously have to agree that the change was good, before any effort was spent on making such a change.  This eliminates "random choice" or "personal whim"

JRiver has every right to use unrestrained and autocratic authority in everything they do.  There is nothing about them deciding to make such a change that would make the change any more arbitrary than every single change they make.

So, by definition, not arbitrary.

There are any number of other adjectives you might rightly use to describe it, but that is not an accurate one.

Your determination that the change would be "contrary to the interests of most users" is certainly your opinion.  It might even be accurate, but it's a pretty big leap to assume that you (who have invested hundreds of hours in carefully crafting your views) speak for "most users" interests.  In my experience, people generally prefer to see things the same way from place to place.  Not always,  and not all situations but often enough to consider it might be beneficial to a group of people.  I would much prefer to see if other users voice their opinion than see you speak for them based partially on erroneous information, and a MUCH different experience level.

In the end, it was just a simple suggestion I certainly didn't seriously expect to be acted upon.

[glynor]

I wonder...

while you're changing this, would it be easy/possible to tie the tree structure to the TheaterView structure.  In other words, if they were mimics of one another, and I think TV should be a Main/Top level item, I'd like to change it in one place (tree), and have it reflected in the other (TheaterView).  Or, change in TheaterView reflected in the tree, since I can't currently change the tree at this level.

I just figure if I want to structure my viewing a particular way, I usually want everything structured the same way, and this just keeps it in sync easier

It used to be this way.

It was changed because Theater Views are fundamentally a different kind of view.  For example: the categories you want added and the filters you want applied may be "different" from how you want to organize views in Standard View (not to mention the Theater View specific configuration controls).  Many users found the previous method very constricting, including Matt (which means it is pretty much doomed).

If you search WAY back (I think this might have been MC14-ish?), there were some monumentally epic threads here discussing all of this before they made the change.

EDIT:  I found it, it was changed very early in the process of MC13, with MC 13.0.21 on 08-15-2008 (while it was still a totally closed beta).  I found one or two of the epic threads in question, but they are (still) in the beta forum so I can't link to them.  Here's one that was in the public forum though.

I was actually on your side back then.  I thought the views were best configured within Standard View, because of the very point you made: The tree is an easier control to use.  I lost.  But, I must say, I've come around on this quite a bit.  My Theater Views are very similar to many of my Standard Views.  But the fact that they don't have to "match" perfectly is quite freeing.  I add WAY more categories to my Standard Views now than I used to, because they don't have to "dual-purpose" as Theater Views.  I don't need as many Standard Views, because they can serve multiple purposes with many different categories added.

While on the other hand, I keep my Theater Views simple, with a max of 2-3 "categories" added usually, to minimize the number of keypresses it takes to get where I want to go.  For those, if I need a view with a different set of categories, I make a separate view specific to the need.

I do agree that the current configuration scheme for Theater View is a bit fiddly.  I think the answer is to fix that.  Matt actually mentioned that he agreed recently... (I believe he said "it isn't the thing I'm most proud of" or something to that effect).  I proposed modifying the Items To Show section so that you can only add one "type" of view, and the way it works is determined either by its position in the hierarchy or by controls on the right-hand side (where you set everything else about the views).

I think that change alone would make it way better and less confusing to deal with.  A bunch of other people agreed in that thread (I'm too lazy to search for it and it might have been in the beta forum).

EDIT:  I got less lazy.  It was on the beta board.  Jim, wanna move nev's "Theater View and the Back key" thread over?

[Matt]

At the risk of spoiling all the fun, I don't expect us to do any reorganization of the tree 100 builds into a version.

Feel free to bump this when v18 starts (still a long ways away).

[JustinChase]

I might have known you wouldn't understand my clever choice of words. (1) fits perfectly—as in the suggestion is your personal whim and lacks any sound reason. (2) would apply if the reader had the mistaken notion JRiver might do such a thing.  But maybe I should have just said, "Your suggestion sucks."

Nah, you're not clever, you're just upset that every time you try to argue with me, I point out in detail your total lack of correctness.

You should have said "", we'd all be better off.

I hereby declare that no matter how completely wrong you are when you try to argue with me, I will just laugh at you to myself, and not reply.  Please don't mistake my silence here for any sort of agreement with you; I'm fairly certain that will NEVER happen.  Just know that I'm laughing at you.

[JustinChase]

It used to be this way.

Many users found the previous method very constricting, including Matt (which means it is pretty much doomed).

Yeah, it was just a thought, no biggie.

FWIW, I wasn't really speaking of/thinking so much about Standard Views.  I was really just suggesting the Tree structure more closely match the TheaterView structure.  Not suggesting they must match perfectly.  More that the main categories are in the same levels, i.e. if TV is under Video in one place, it's also under Video in the other.

However, as Matt (unsurprisingly) stated, ain't happenin' anytime soon; which is fine 

[preproman]

I think we both know that JRiver will do whatever they think is best, whether or not I specify my desire for it to optional or not.

I disagree this is arbitrary, based on the definition of the word...

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective:   

    1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
    2. (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

JRiver would obviously have to agree that the change was good, before any effort was spent on making such a change.  This eliminates "random choice" or "personal whim"

JRiver has every right to use unrestrained and autocratic authority in everything they do.  There is nothing about them deciding to make such a change that would make the change any more arbitrary than every single change they make.

So, by definition, not arbitrary.

There are any number of other adjectives you might rightly use to describe it, but that is not an accurate one.

Your determination that the change would be "contrary to the interests of most users" is certainly your opinion.  It might even be accurate, but it's a pretty big leap to assume that you (who have invested hundreds of hours in carefully crafting your views) speak for "most users" interests.  In my experience, people generally prefer to see things the same way from place to place.  Not always,  and not all situations but often enough to consider it might be beneficial to a group of people.  I would much prefer to see if other users voice their opinion than see you speak for them based partially on erroneous information, and a MUCH different experience level.

In the end, it was just a simple suggestion I certainly didn't seriously expect to be acted upon.

+1