Print

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

[rick.ca]

This is all about the looks of Theater View in MC not the functionality.  It's not about what we can and can't do in MC.  It's just about the look of the skins and the lack of skins we have in theater View.  That's it.  No way - please don't mess with the functionality of JR.  But please improve the Theater view skins and add more Theater view skin choices.

I don't think it's possible to make that distinction. Consider the XBMC video offered as an example of something with more 'eye candy'. As xplain points out, much of that is accomplished with techniques that require the loss of flexibility and function. The narrator of that video was fond of saying things like, "...and here you'll find everything you might want to know about...". But, clearly, to the MC user, it does not. It presents a fixed set of fields (likely stock, but I'm not sure; certainly not expressions) in a fixed space. With custom graphics. A fixed number of view variations (Genre, Year, Actor, etc.) apparently designed according to what the skin designer think users need. I don't think that compares favourably to an unlimited number of views configured any way you want or one view that incorporates all those views. Another example: The 'Last 5 Movies Added' view. What's with that? What if I tend to import 10 movies at a time? If that view is useless, what do I replace it with?

So, yes, I wholeheartedly agree any improvements to the appearance of Theatre View must not be done at the expense of function and it's inherent flexibility. But doing that with different skins is easier said than done. It seems XBMC skins are of little help in suggesting a practical way to do it. I suppose a different skin engine might increase the number of user contributed skins, but MC has nothing like the XBMC user base. Skins can also be modified by users, but that's not going to be of any use. We have an apparent majority of users who can't even be bothered to use the current configuration system. Despite it's shortcomings, however, it's far more accessible and easy to use than modifying a skin would be.

I believe the only viable path to a Theatre View with more 'eye candy' is one which make the configuration system easier to use, encourages users to use it to get whatever result it is they want, and facilitates the exchange of view configurations so users can better assist one another. In that environment, it would be much easier for users to ask for, the developers to provide, and then users implement new features that would add to the visual appeal of Theatre View. A simple example I've mentioned before: A mechanism for associating icons or logos with the values of any field, and display those instead of the words (for things like file types, codecs, etc.). I suspect the developers would be happy to provide that basic functionality—if they didn't also have to feel responsible for building it into stocks views based on stock fields populated by stock values—in a way that pleased everyone. If we had the basic functionality and a more user-friendly configuration system, many users would be happy helping each other implement such a feature in their views.

[gvanbrunt]

As per Jims request on my earlier post I started a new thread here:

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72150.0

I believe the only viable path to a Theatre View with more 'eye candy' is one which make the configuration system easier to use, encourages users to use it to get whatever result it is they want, and facilitates the exchange of view configurations so users can better assist one another.

Exactly it. I think almost all of the people I see going to XBMC after trying MC do so because to "configure" XBMC all one has to do is select a skin. It changes form and function to something close to what they want. MC has many more options for configuring it, but it is not easily accessible to the average user. Heck many things are not even easily accessible to the expert user for some things. I know there are many times someone mentions some way of accomplishing things in a thread and I think "darn, why didn't I think of that before?"

[Scolex]

We have an apparent majority of users who can't even be bothered to use the current configuration system. Despite it's shortcomings, however, it's far more accessible and easy to use than modifying a skin would be.

There isn't a configuration system unless you are simply referring to what is available in options.
What is available in options is more about setting up parent pages and their children and has nothing to do with the actual layout.
The skinning system (xml) could possibly do all kinds of things if there were a place to get information on what can and can not be done.
The wiki is very limited and some of what is there isn't even in any of the stock views so we could see a working example and tweak it.
For instance I would like to alter the PIP (picture in picture) that is mentioned in the wiki but I searched all available Theater View xml files and there is not a single PIP entry to use for reference so I don't even know where to place it.

There are many things that I would like to change and would if there were information available.
Just a few: Set number of columns/rows, determine vertical/horizontal scrolling (overflow), set thumbnail size, change the placement of the PIP, size individual info blocks (lyrics) and what their overflow behavior is (hidden, scroll, popout), etc.

I believe the only viable path to a Theatre View with more 'eye candy' is one which make the configuration system easier to use, encourages users to use it to get whatever result it is they want, and facilitates the exchange of view configurations so users can better assist one another. In that environment, it would be much easier for users to ask for, the developers to provide, and then users implement new features that would add to the visual appeal of Theatre View. A simple example I've mentioned before: A mechanism for associating icons or logos with the values of any field, and display those instead of the words (for things like file types, codecs, etc.). I suspect the developers would be happy to provide that basic functionality—if they didn't also have to feel responsible for building it into stocks views based on stock fields populated by stock values—in a way that pleased everyone. If we had the basic functionality and a more user-friendly configuration system, many users would be happy helping each other implement such a feature in their views.

This I completely agree with as long as, when new features are implemented an example of how to implement it is given.
Maybe have a wiki page that is nothing more than an example of a complete xml file that is kept up to date as enhancements come along.

[struct]

I assume that Jim's point of reposting the original comment into a new thread was to ascertain if we thought more should be done.  There is no doubt that much has been done, that we all think on the balance of things, that MC is still the best.  But should more be done in improving GUI/candy (I use this term on purpose to avoid defining what is an improvement)...  I think yes.

Or are you after little ideas that "appear" easy to implement and avoid getting a "messy" interface and improve the candiness of the presentation, eg, where fanart might be used, where Bluray symbols might go?

I hope that you are after ideas for the latter. For it would worry me a little if we had to choose between "substance" and look.  Both are important, and having one does not substitute for the other.  I like the idea of substance, it appeals to the engineer in me, but it isn't everything.  eg I like MadVR, but I also want fanart in a TV Series view and I find it very hard to say which is most important on my older plasma screen.  Further, when it comes to movies and TV, look is proportionally more important than substance compared with the audio world (where you may have 50,000 tracks that really need management).  The substance of the movie exists, it resides in a directory called Movies and for many that list is not too long; very easy and robust ways to play it also exist, VLC, MPC-HC; what you go to MC for is the eye candy.  Stop improving this aspect and you will probably not get all the video customers you could.


Craig

[xplain]

For instance I would like to alter the PIP (picture in picture) that is mentioned in the wiki but I searched all available Theater View xml files and there is not a single PIP entry to use for reference so I don't even know where to place it.

I have tried to build in the PIP in the skins, but this function is broking  .

It presents a fixed set of fields (likely stock, but I'm not sure; certainly not expressions) in a fixed space. With custom graphics. A fixed number of view variations (Genre, Year, Actor, etc.) apparently designed according to what the skin designer think users need. I don't think that compares favourably to an unlimited number of views configured any way you want or one view that incorporates all those views. Another example: The 'Last 5 Movies Added' view. What's with that? What if I tend to import 10 movies at a time? If that view is useless, what do I replace it with?

Exactly my thoughts, just didn't know how to write it.

I think we need a system, that makes instaling a skin and theme to Theater View, as easy
as it is for standard view (View - skins - skin manager - download skins).


As for designing skins it would be nice if we could drag out things
to frontpage from the underlying menu, make PIP work again,
and have the option to control the rollersystem a bit more (Size - font - lock it, so it dosn't change position according to zoom - )

Some animation options for both menu and background, and control for the animation,
ex. control how fast the backdrop fades in and out on frontpage.

And propably other things a can't think of right now.

Thomas

[tcman41]

I too wish JRiver would improve it's theater view headend as well but for now I use XBMC as my "headend" software and JRiver as my "organization" software, nothing wrong with either of them.

I am not sure that one can combine the two, they are kind of different beasts, I use JRiver to import all my media, tag and organize it, I use XBMC on my HDTV's to present it throughout my house, seems normal to me.

TC 

[locust]

If we were able to export single views to a file to share with others (Which would probably be better than sharing a whole configuration)

I think the file would also have to contain any custom fields and the calculated data (if any), so that the view would not be broken when another user imports it (Assuming they don't contain anything to do with directories)

MC would just have to flag up conflicts, if when a user imports the file, if they allready have the same field required but with different calculated data.

MC could then ask to replace the calculated data or add a new field with the same name but with a number at the end and automatically append the rest of the import file where that field shows up.

It would be much easier for someone to document single views and tell new users what metadata and such is needed for it to run correctly.

[TMA-1]

I don't think J River should put their efforts in make more eye candy, they should leave that to the community.
Make Theater View easier to skin and customize and the eye candy will probably turn up automatically.
The more flexible and extensive J River can make the interface between the back end and the presentation layer, the less they have to focus on stuff like visuals.
Personally I don't care if it's a single large xml-file or a complete gui, just make as many attributes of it as possible accessible and dynamic. 
 

 

[gvanbrunt]

One other thought I had. If the repositories of Skins, Views etc ever get created by JRiver, it would be good to allow designers to package them up in a single "Theme" etc. For example it would contain skins, views, configuration settings etc. This would be equivalent to what most users think of a skin. It would make it easy for a user to select one thing and have everything setup they way it is in other software while still maintaining the flexibility of the existing system.

[xplain]

One other thought I had. If the repositories of Skins, Views etc ever get created by JRiver, it would be good to allow designers to package them up in a single "Theme" etc. For example it would contain skins, views, configuration settings etc. This would be equivalent to what most users think of a skin. It would make it easy for a user to select one thing and have everything setup they way it is in other software while still maintaining the flexibility of the existing system.

I had the same thought, but I dumped the idea again,
because if users have set up a lot of different custom things in
theater view, and then all there settings would be lost
with the change of a skin.

But it would be nice if you could set some of the options to a default level
in the skin file, like, theme, size, font, Image/video mix amount, background.

Users would after the install of the skin still have option to change these thing,
but there would be a default setting packed with the skin.

Thomas

[JustinChase]

Ideally, the system will result in the sharing party being told "This field is non-standard, would you like to explain it?" when creating their skin/suit/package.

This would let those inclined to share their complex/custom work have the simple ability to help others to recreate it.

"This field parses the data from these, and presents it in these places.  To recreate/use, just make sure your data is formatted like this..."

As long as all custom fields can be shared (without the need for some data being included), this gives others some insight into what something is designed to do, and how to recreate.

Eventually, some great views and skins will be revealed, and the standard items offers can be amended to use some of these ideas.

I don't think JRiver should spend much/any time trying to 'pretty up' MC, but instead reconsider the default presentation of some things (ever looked at the default images views in Gizmo?), and the data likely to be present on a users system.  now that we have much more automatic metadata, more can/should be used in the default views/schemes.  This alone will do wonders for the brand new user.  If their current data was just presented in a more usable, appealing fashion.  There are many examples of this, but this isn't the thread for them, IMO.

I've seen many requests for things that would make skinning easier, but since I don't skin, I've not paid that much attention.  However, the time JRiver does NOT spend on 'prettiness', and instead spends on enhancing the tools and system to allow others to share, will result in at least a 10-fold return in prettiness, based on the number of people that seem willing to invest their time on skins, views and expressions, but lack better tools to leverage that by more easily sharing.

In summary, make making 'eye candy' easier, let others make 'eye candy'.

[gvanbrunt]

I had the same thought, but I dumped the idea again,
because if users have set up a lot of different custom things in
theater view, and then all there settings would be lost
with the change of a skin.

I agree. I wasn't really clear, but the person installing should be able to choose what major parts to apply. Ideally MC would keep track of a users previous settings/views etc as well so you could "bring them back". Shouldn't be that hard to do as that would just be saved as yet another "package".

[preproman]

In summary, make making 'eye candy' easier, let others make 'eye candy'.

I like this idea a lot.

[JustinChase]

...I'm going to post a special "cleared" version of my Library Backup (no assets included, tweaked to remove some things that are specific to my filesystem setup or whatever).  People can then download the ZIP, make a new blank library, and restore the backup to try it out with their own files on their own system...Then, we can all mine them for ideas and JRiver can look for some simple, clean ideas that might be applicable to the stock views...

I know you've been busy lately, and I suspect you currently might be taking a newly created Monk to hunt Diablo, and may not be back here for days.

But...since Newegg chose to ship my pre-order via regular UPS, and it won't be here until tomorrow   I just wanted to bump this and say that I VERY MUCH still want to see your library and views setup.  I'd like to see those of several others also, and have wanted this for about a decade

So, when (if?) you get some free time, please just know that your efforts on this will be appreciated, whenever it might be. 

*As will the inevitable killing of The Devil, for the third time

[rick.ca]

I think the file would also have to contain any custom fields and the calculated data (if any), so that the view would not be broken when another user imports it...

I don't think it reasonable to expect the program (or some configuration export/import routine) do anything very helpful in making a configuration work in a different library. Adding someone else's custom fields would just make a mess of the library and not help in deciding what should be done with them. But this doesn't mean sharing configurations wouldn't be helpful.

For this sort of thing, there's no substitute for the user's judgment on things like whether a field needs to be changed to a similar one in the host library, changed to an expression, or deleted because the data isn't available. Out of necessity, those of us who use many custom fields will have our way of ensuring the names are reasonably descriptive and distinguishable from standard fields. My way of doing so is very likely different from yours. You will therefore find it easy to distinguish my custom fields from standard fields and your own. You may find it tedious changing many field names throughout the configuration, but I don't think there's any way around that. (Although this is one reason I like the idea of the export format of a configuration being an understandable, editable text file. Much of the tedium could be removed by making search and replace changes in a text editor.)

A more robust and user-friendly configuration interface would also make things much easier. The ability to copy views and branches of views, to easily move them around and to hide them (i.e., so they can be saved in the configuration, but not used in Theatre View) would help a lot. An imported view (or group of views) could be moved beside a similar existing one for comparison, a copy made and hidden for backup, and then the original modified or experimented with. At the worse, it would be so foreign to the host library it would be pointless to try to modify it. But being able to examine it inside the interface, along side the creator's screenshots, and compare it to existing understood views is likely to be an excellent illustration of any relevant techniques used. The user can then build their own view from scratch, still using the other as a guide.

File info templates from the source library could safely be added to the end of the list of existing templates. The user could then modify a template and put it in the appropriate sequence, replace an existing one with it, or use it as a guide for modifying an existing one. I don't think the file caption should be imported (because it's unlikely to work), but it can be made available in a separate text file. The user could then adapt it for use with their library and preferences, or just leave it out.

One thing a very generous view provider could do is use a fixed set of expression fields throughout the configuration for anything but a stock field that's used for exactly the same thing by everyone (although there might not be many of those). They would then provide a list of those fields, along with a description of data that should go into each. The user could then add those fields to their library, and for each one enter the expression that produces the same data from their library. In many cases, the expression would simply be one field and serve as a mapping. If the data doesn't exist, it could be left empty (which could be handled properly in the configuration).

Contrary to what I said at the outset, this special list of fields (with default expressions) would be worthwhile to import to the library. I wouldn't expect it to work perfectly, but for the most part the user could focus on modifying these 'mapping fields' and ignore the mechanics of the configuration. It may seem clumsy, but it's just a straightforward way of using the power of MC to make things easier for the user.

[gvanbrunt]

I VERY MUCH still want to see your library and views setup.

+1

[glynor]

I'm still planning to.

I need to finish getting my server back to life (the sides of the case are still hanging off and I don't have all of my drives fully functional yet), and then I'll do this.  It is just going to take a little maintenance cruft-busting first (some ugly stuff in there still that I don't use anymore).  I'm waiting on a new Power Supply from Newegg, so...

This weekend I should have time.

[JustinChase]

I'm still planning to...This weekend I should have time.

not trying to pressure you, take your time.  I just wanted to let you know we're waiting patiently.

good luck bringing the monster to life

[MrHaugen]

This is obviously a thing that many cares about, and we've seen how important Theater View is to most of us (ref. Theater View poll). Would someone care to create a few posts with individual suggestions of improvement from this thread? Me starting such threads have not proved to give great results lately... I think that this covers most of what have been suggested here (I've re-read the thread fast, so sorry if I'm missing some important points):

Art support

• We got the long waited Artist and TV Show art a while ago, but we're still missing some key art pieces. You can manually add Season covers, but the scraper has not taken advantage of it yet. There are also the question of adding backgrounds permanently for faster background switching, and we also have Banners for series on TVDB ready to be grabbed. Why not utilize this and create a nicer Theater View? We have most of the tools in place. What we need is the images and a few views to show them off.

Caption Management or separation

• The current Caption field is to limited when you're doing complex operations. Some sort of help here is needed. At least workbench with better overview. A suggestion of different caption fields for different media and media sub types could also uncomplicate things.

Graphical element support in caption

• Add the ability to add small images like icons in captions. Also consider to allow more caption items on the same line, to format tags on one line instead of a list and alignment of text and icons.

Better view management

• Ability to import and export views as well as enabling and disabling views. Possibly also a way to share those views with other users, so it's easier for newbies to test out good views.

Skinning improvement thread

• This is a very important field. We could really use a sticky thread with suggestions of things that developers find missing when they try to create skins. We need some focus on this is we want to get a rich Skinning community. Without this, we will forever be stuck with rather ordinary skins without much eye candy or functionality except the basics. And the user group that really have a focus on such will be pretty much lost to us.

Better Skinning accessibility

• Add options in Theater View (or at least from standard view) to download and load new skins and themes from JRiver servers directly. Add more skins and better documentation (pictures and description) of them on web pages so people can experience skins that suite their taste better.

Documentation!

• This is very important for complex things like Skin Creation and Caption customization. Most people does not have a clue how to do this.We have some documentation, but we need to improve it

[flac.rules]

I don't think J River should put their efforts in make more eye candy, they should leave that to the community.
Make Theater View easier to skin and customize and the eye candy will probably turn up automatically.
The more flexible and extensive J River can make the interface between the back end and the presentation layer, the less they have to focus on stuff like visuals.
Personally I don't care if it's a single large xml-file or a complete gui, just make as many attributes of it as possible accessible and dynamic.  
 

 That would be the best, but as of today the ampunt of different user-made skins are limited, and they are pretty similar in look. Why? Is there something that can be improved in the skinning system that makes it easier for people to make skins? Is the community too small? Something else?

In general i agreee almost totally on what MrHaugen has said in this thread, I think this is something one should focus on improving. Yes, functionality is more important than looks, but MC-functionality is stellar i think its time to give the loogs som love too.




[/quote]

[TMA-1]

"XBMC includes a new GUI library written from scratch. This library allows you to skin/change everything you see in XBMC, from the images, the sizes and positions of all controls, colours, fonts, and text, through to altering navigation and even adding new functionality."
XBMC Wiki

This is perhaps to much to ask of MC but at the same time it's one good explenation why XBMC has tons of skinns and J River does not.  Im not saying J River should do exactly what XBMC does, but I hope J River could get some inspiration from it.

[Sesam]

The Theater View in JRiver definitely needs some work, it is really the only weakness of this otherwise awesome application.

People will judge it by the default skin. So there needs to be a better one, to elaborate I think it looks too plain. Some icons, custom graphics etc.. would be nice. The backdrops are especially a poor choice (old classic oil paintings overlayed with a hi-tech looking overlay clashes in style). Also I think the default size is too small for a normal living room (it would be better to have it larger as default, I used it for weeks without realizing the size of the fonts could be changed). Also I think the resolution of the backdrop graphics should be 1080p minimum, and it's a bad idea to have the volume bar pop-up at the bottom (as that's where the text usually is). While there are a few good third party skins that proved that MC can look good, I have to again stress that reviewers and consumers judge by the default skins.

However looks is not the only problem, also the navigation in MC is an oddity. People have for years got accustomed to the navigation in DVD Players and other MediaCenters to behave in a certain way. MC goes too much against the norm.

[pcstockton]

The Theater View in JRiver definitely needs some work, it is really the only weakness of this otherwise awesome application.

Theater view is one of my favorite aspects of MC!  What is wrong with it other than you (and I) dont have the tools and skills to customize it?

[rick.ca]

However looks is not the only problem, also the navigation in MC is an oddity. People have for years got accustomed to the navigation in DVD Players and other MediaCenters to behave in a certain way. MC goes too much against the norm.

You picked an excellent example of why many of us value MC—it goes against the norm. Rather than mimicking some useless navigation system born in the days of the VCR, it uses an elegant, consistent system that's easy to master and facilitates rapid navigation. This is essential for a UI that can include any number of views of a variety of different types and appearances.

People will judge it by the default skin.

That's probably so, but what to do about it is certainly not clear. What is to be done about people who are willing to judge what should be considered a demo configuration while failing to even consider that things like backgrounds and size are easily changed, the quality of downloaded backdrop graphics cannot be determined by it's resolution (or easily by any means), and the volume bar is placed exactly where a majority of users would want and expect it to be?

I believe far too much effort has been wasted on trying to make Theatre View work 'out-of-the-box' at the expense of making it easier to configure. The result has been a predictable nurturing of the notion it should work 'out-of-the-box', that's all it does, and even looking at the configuration is something a 'normal' user should never have to do. If the focus had been on making it easier to configure, far more users would appreciate the power, flexibility and elegance of the core design. And, contrary to being a weakness, is one of the many strengths of the application.

[nwboater]

.......
I believe far too much effort has been wasted on trying to make Theatre View work 'out-of-the-box' at the expense of making it easier to configure.
........

It would be interesting to know what percentage of new users will take time to configure something as opposed to those who, if they don't like the looks just give up on it. Difficult to know the answer but my hunch is that the latter is by far the largest majority.

That said I still vote for a lot more configuration and skin-ability in Theater View. This should be in addition to a great looking default configuration which I feel the present one is.

Rod

[JimH]

JustinChase,
I've split your post to a new thread.  It's more about usability than eye candy, in my opinion.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72370.msg489843#msg489843

Jim

[Sesam]

You picked an excellent example of why many of us value MC—it goes against the norm. Rather than mimicking some useless navigation system born in the days of the VCR, it uses an elegant, consistent system that's easy to master and facilitates rapid navigation. This is essential for a UI that can include any number of views of a variety of different types and appearances.

That's probably so, but what to do about it is certainly not clear. What is to be done about people who are willing to judge what should be considered a demo configuration while failing to even consider that things like backgrounds and size are easily changed, the quality of downloaded backdrop graphics cannot be determined by it's resolution (or easily by any means), and the volume bar is placed exactly where a majority of users would want and expect it to be?

I believe far too much effort has been wasted on trying to make Theatre View work 'out-of-the-box' at the expense of making it easier to configure. The result has been a predictable nurturing of the notion it should work 'out-of-the-box', that's all it does, and even looking at the configuration is something a 'normal' user should never have to do. If the focus had been on making it easier to configure, far more users would appreciate the power, flexibility and elegance of the core design. And, contrary to being a weakness, is one of the many strengths of the application.

I'm not necessarily saying the navigation is bad, just that it is counterintuitive for pretty much everyone who has used other Media Centers before. Though I think some features need to be easier to access like changing audio tracks, subtitles etc.. Like most people living in a non-english speaking country, I watch almost everything subtitled. The problem with placing the volume bar at the bottom, is that you can't see the subtitles while changing volume.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of new users will take time to configure something as opposed to those who, if they don't like the looks just give up on it. Difficult to know the answer but my hunch is that the latter is by far the largest majority.

First impressions are very important in my opinion. Out of all the major Media Center applications, MC is the one with the most plain looking default skin (talking only about the Theater View, the standard view is fine). Lots of customization and configuration options are of-course important, but to prevent people from turning at the door you need to have something that looks more appealing to lure them in.

For example I had been using MC only for playing music for quite some time, while having XBMC on my HTPC. Sure I had taken a few looks at the Theater View, but because of the plain default look I never bothered to try it properly. The only reason I eventually gave MC a proper chance and switched to it, was because both XBMC and MP are rather buggy and unstable. And I have to give credit to MC, so far not a single crash on my HTPC. Very impressive considering XBMC and MP would survive a few days at most.

JRiver recently made two absolutely top notch skins for the standard view "Black on Black" and "Pearl Bailey", I wish they put similar effort on a new fancy theater view skin

[JimH]

The only reason I eventually gave MC a proper chance and switched to it, was because both XBMC and MP are rather buggy and unstable.

Aha!  Substance matters.

[Sesam]

Aha!  Substance matters.

Indeed it did in the long run, I just wish I had made the switch sooner

[glynor]

I'm still planning to.

I need to finish getting my server back to life (the sides of the case are still hanging off and I don't have all of my drives fully functional yet), and then I'll do this.  It is just going to take a little maintenance cruft-busting first (some ugly stuff in there still that I don't use anymore).  I'm waiting on a new Power Supply from Newegg, so...

This weekend I should have time.

Well, we actually went away on a sudden, unplanned, wacky adventure to Philadelphia this past weekend, so I didn't get to it then.

But I wanted to mention that I made good progress on cleaning up my library last night.  It needs one more good night of work and I'll be posting the ZIP file.

[JustinChase]

Thanks for the update; sounds like you had a good time, congrats

I'm not going to be able to do anything with it for a little while, so don't take my lack of gratitude or feedback to mean I don't/won't/didn't appreciate it.

I'm having jaw surgery, so will be a little 'out of it' for a few days/weeks.

Thanks again for spending the time to do this!

[pmindemann]

I'm relatively new here, but I'll also take up the cause--Daydream's post was spot on.

I first read about MC about a year ago when I was setting up my first real HTPC. I tried it out, because I'm a Stereophile, Absolute Sound-reading audio nut, and I knew MC was supposed to be tops for getting the best sound out of a PC. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out half the functionality, so I ended up sticking with Windows Media Center.

Fast forward a year, and after reading a positive review of MC in The Absolute Sound again, I tried giving MC another shot. The 17 upgrade appeared to have made things simpler, as I was finally able to figure out most of the functionality, but I have to agree...  as for the interface, practically any other main stream media center is better. Period. Even after trying out various skins, etc., my wife (who is a full-time graphic designer) summed it up with her very first comment: "I don't like how this looks."

Since I value audio quality over most anything else, I've stuck with MC, and invested in both the full license and an AnyDVD HD license (even though I already had PowerDVD for WMC). But I've done so despite the interface, not because of it. And that should say it all. The back-end seems to be pretty amazing... hopefully at some point soon, the front end will be given a bit more attention. I realize it's a continuing evolution, but it's also not freeware, and as any successful software company will tell you--user experience is everything.

Thank you for letting me opine.

[pcstockton]

as for the interface, practically any other main stream media center is better. Period. Even after trying out various skins, etc., my wife (who is a full-time graphic designer) summed it up with her very first comment: "I don't like how this looks."

Would you mind expanding on two things. 

1)  Which other media players are you referring to?
2) What didn't your wife like?  Standard View?  Theater View? 

thx,
Patrick

[rick.ca]

The back-end seems to be pretty amazing... hopefully at some point soon, the front end will be given a bit more attention.

You seem to be looking at it as a 'back-end' that does all the work, and a 'front-end' which is just for looking at. What about all the 'work' done by the front-end—that makes it highly configurable and adaptable to any need or preference, while still performing with great speed and efficiency as a database? Just as with audio quality, this is an aspect of MC that's very important to many of us, and one in which most of the competition fails miserably. At the same time, it's something that makes it more challenging to add the kind of visuals lesser applications can offer—because they have little adaptability or performance to lose.

It's not a matter of the 'front-end' not getting attention. Like everything else, it's being continuously improved in incremental ways that are feasible. Instead of criticizing it for not being something none of us want it to be, you'll have to be much more precise about how it can made to look better, and how that might be done without sacrificing any of the fundamental qualities that already set it apart from its inferior competition.

[flac.rules]

It's not a matter of the 'front-end' not getting attention. Like everything else, it's being continuously improved in incremental ways that are feasible. Instead of criticizing it for not being something none of us want it to be, you'll have to be much more precise about how it can made to look better, and how that might be done without sacrificing any of the fundamental qualities that already set it apart from its inferior competition.

What is it "none of us wants it to be"? Look at skins of products like meedios (or XBMC), the best skins are much better looking extremely flexible in what to show and how. Is a better software all in all? not at all imho. But i don't see the sacrifice you claim has to be made. Better lookung menu-elments, and fonts, with better flexibility of placement and more skins, in no way has to alter the flexibility in MC theatre view.

[rick.ca]

Better lookung menu-elments, and fonts, with better flexibility of placement and more skins, in no way has to alter the flexibility in MC theatre view.

Then, by all means, make some specific suggestions. And if it's not self-evident, explain how they could be implemented without negative consequences. JRiver has made it clear such suggestions will be considered. But it seems all they get are sweeping judgments like "the front-end needs more attention" or "Theatre View needs more eye candy."

[flac.rules]

Then, by all means, make some specific suggestions. And if it's not self-evident, explain how they could be implemented without negative consequences. JRiver has made it clear such suggestions will be considered. But it seems all they get are sweeping judgments like "the front-end needs more attention" or "Theatre View needs more eye candy."

A lot of people do not have the know-how to be very concrete on how to solve what they percive as problems or areas of improvement. That dosn't make their points invalid. But to give an example, this is a skin a find to be quite a lot better looking than theatre view as of today

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8941/aeondark.jpg

But i think the main point is the lack of options when it comes too the look of theatre view. The amount of skins are small, and besides coloring they are pretty similar in look. I am sure many people would disagree with me, on what skin is best looking.

[JimH]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8941/aeondark.jpg

So if we used backgrounds with young women in bikinis, would that work for everyone?

If you like large letters, try using the size feature in Theater View options.  Those letters would be around 180% in MC.

[pcstockton]

A lot of people do not have the know-how to be very concrete on how to solve what they percive as problems or areas of improvement. That dosn't make their points invalid. But to give an example, this is a skin a find to be quite a lot better looking than theatre view as of today

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8941/aeondark.jpg

I dont agree.  I like the simple interface of theater view much more than those.

I am all for Theater View improving in terms of usability, but not at the expense of the current feel.

[SamuelMaki]

So if we used backgrounds with young women in bikinis, would that work for everyone?

+1

Okay, being serious, I cannot understand why people keep criticizing the Theater view, I personally like it more than the XBMC-menus... (I know, I can do menu that looks like a JRiver...). I like the famous paintings and the menus are usable and it shows the info I need (and little more...). So, what you need more? Am I just a dinosaur that has dropped from the fashion?

[imugli]

I dont agree.  I like the simple interface of theater view much more than those.

I am all for Theater View improving in terms of usability, but not at the expense of the current feel.

This!

Couldn't agree more.

[rick.ca]

Doesn't everyone already have a 'young girls in bikinis' Theme? No wonder so many are unhappy...

[flac.rules]

So if we used backgrounds with young women in bikinis, would that work for everyone?

If you like large letters, try using the size feature in Theater View options.  Those letters would be around 180% in MC.

Come on, I am trying to be serious and constructive here. Please give me the same courtesy. The difference isn't one of simply font size, and the background-pictures are user-chosen and obviously irrelevant. And as I said, other people probably don't agree to what skin looks the best. Different people have different taste.

I am sure its not done with ill intents, but the MC-team is usually very good at listening to user feedback, even if they don't agree or don't implement. Maybe I am beeing grumpy, but I don't like it when I am trying to be helpful and the points I am trying to make are made fun of or met with irrelevant considerations.

So, my point with the screenshots are NOT what background images this screenshot has, nor that everyone has to like that particular skin better than the MC-default.

[JimH]

Come on, I am trying to be serious and constructive here. Please give me the same courtesy.

I'm sorry if you were offended.  I was at least half joking. 

As rick.ca mentioned, it's not clear what people want.  We hear the general grumbling, but without specifics, we'll never get anywhere.

Our point of view is this:

1.  I like simple.

2.  Matt likes what it is now.  It's more than what I would call simple.

3.  Taste is so subjective that we could fix it for you and break it for others.

4.  It is functionally pretty good.  It works with a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, or a Media Center Remote.  It was no easy feat to get it there.  We don't want to break that.

5.  It can be customized now.  xplain did a nice job.  Others may do so in the future.  We've never documented this well.

I can see some obvious things we could do.  We increased the default text size last week, for instance. 

We will do more.  We just have to weigh the costs and benefits of the very long list of changes that both we and our customers would like.

I wish we had 2x or 4x the budget to work with.  It does feel like we're getting there now.  Our sales grew more than 50% each of the last two years.

[rick.ca]

We need possible features to be added so we CAN enable it with skinning.

I fished this out of a long paragraph which would otherwise be a solid argument for why all this is a lost cause. Now, the same users who will not take advantage of the boat-load of features already available for 'customizing' Theatre View are obviously unlikely to use any additional skinning features. So the idea behind this must be the few with the necessary ability and willingness will use these features to create new skins. If enough high quality skins are created, there may be sufficient variety most could find something better suiting their visual taste than a default skin. In other words, something similar to the situation we now have with skins for Standard View.

Theatre View is not going to be re-developed with a new full-featured (whatever that means) skinning system. So "possible features to be added" should be taken literally. That is, the features must be feasible in the context of the current Theatre View, require a relatively small amount of development time, and yet still produce a result of significant benefit. The problem is, how can users who don't understand the plumbing identify such features?

So why not support efforts like xplain's design group. Not only would some interest in the project motivate those participating, knowing the sort of results users are hoping for has to help. Also, knowing the best they're going to get in the short term may be just one relatively-easy-to-implement feature, they would be the best judge of what feature to request—the one providing the biggest bang-for-the-buck in the circumstances—and how to make a case for it the developers are able to consider.

This isn't going to provide any instant gratification. But if skinning has been neglected, this is the sort of thing that has some chance of raising the level of attention to that most aspects of the program get. That is, users do their best to describe features they believe will benefit many, and then some of those are implemented in a process of ongoing incremental improvements. It takes time, but it's much more effective than, "I want it to look like XBMC."

[flac.rules]

I fished this out of a long paragraph which would otherwise be a solid argument for why all this is a lost cause. Now, the same users who will not take advantage of the boat-load of features already available for 'customizing' Theatre View are obviously unlikely to use any additional skinning features. So the idea behind this must be the few with the necessary ability and willingness will use these features to create new skins. If enough high quality skins are created, there may be sufficient variety most could find something better suiting their visual taste than a default skin. In other words, something similar to the situation we now have with skins for Standard View.

Theatre View is not going to be re-developed with a new full-featured (whatever that means) skinning system. So "possible features to be added" should be taken literally. That is, the features must be feasible in the context of the current Theatre View, require a relatively small amount of development time, and yet still produce a result of significant benefit. The problem is, how can users who don't understand the plumbing identify such features?

I don't quite follow you? As far as I can tell, the situation fore standard view is not one of big variety, it's skins with different colors more or less, but the variety is pretty small, it is instantly recognizable as MC due too its look.

And why isn't theatre view going to be redeveloped? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Frankly, I hope it will, if that is whats necessary to get a flexible skinning system, but it will take a development effort of course.

[flac.rules]

I'm sorry if you were offended.  I was at least half joking. 

As rick.ca mentioned, it's not clear what people want.  We hear the general grumbling, but without specifics, we'll never get anywhere.

Our point of view is this:

1.  I like simple.

2.  Matt likes what it is now.  It's more than what I would call simple.

3.  Taste is so subjective that we could fix it for you and break it for others.

4.  It is functionally pretty good.  It works with a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, or a Media Center Remote.  It was no easy feat to get it there.  We don't want to break that.

5.  It can be customized now.  xplain did a nice job.  Others may do so in the future.  We've never documented this well.

I can see some obvious things we could do.  We increased the default text size last week, for instance. 

We will do more.  We just have to weigh the costs and benefits of the very long list of changes that both we and our customers would like.

I wish we had 2x or 4x the budget to work with.  It does feel like we're getting there now.  Our sales grew more than 50% each of the last two years.

I agree with number 3. That is why what you, matt or I like doesn't matter all that much (of course there is some central design guidelines that most people can agree on, but you get my point). The point is to make a flexible system. I don't see anything with the look i posted that would brake any navigational features.

Maybe it can be customized, I have no experience in skinning, so maybe you can make the exact same thing, but I don't know how, that the problem is that nobody has done it more than it can't be done. Let me tell what i like with the skin i posted, and maybe we/I can get some more light shed on it.

What i like about the skin:

1. The grey continuous background around the the menuchoices (tv shows, musc, movies and so on), can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
2. The lighter grey info bar underneath the menu-choices, which has rss-feeds or other info about the menu-choice, can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
3. The font-size and type, and the fact that the menu-choices can be placed at the bottom of the screen instead of the middle, can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
4. That the menu-choice is signaled by a color-change, not a white box around it, can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
5. That if all the menu-elements fits on a single screenwidth, the menu-choices are locked in place, (in MC, it would be that only the white selecting-box moved, but the menu-choices where locked in place on the screen), can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
6. That background images are non-faded in the menu and change very quick when you change what menu-choice is selected, I haven't found a way to do this in MC.

If anyone is really interested, I guess i could do the same treatment deeper down in the selections too, (showing movies, movie-info and so on).

[rick.ca]

I don't quite follow you? As far as I can tell, the situation fore standard view is not one of big variety, it's skins with different colors more or less, but the variety is pretty small, it is instantly recognizable as MC due too its look.

Well, maybe I'm not following MrHaugen. I made the assumption he had something feasible in mind. If he didn't, I nevertheless hoped this reasoning might steer the discussion towards something more productive.

And why isn't theatre view going to be redeveloped?

Because JRiver has said, over and over again, it would not be (any time soon). Most recently, in the post immediately before mine! If it ever is, it's still unlikely be anything like you seem to be wishing for. Such a skinning engine would have to be far more complicated for something as flexible and complex as MC than it's much simpler competitors. And even if it were possible to create such a thing, it's not at all clear MC has a sufficiently large user base that an active and productive skinning community would spontaneously evolve.

...can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?

Some of these things (or something similar) probably can be done today. Others might require some change or new capability. Some are not feasible or compatible with the overall design of how things work.

The insistence JRiver provide the means to make MC look and feel like XBMC (or some other inferior competitor) is a waste of time. It's also an unnecessary distraction from the possibility of incremental improvements that would allow for more variety in the visual style of Theatre View.

[flac.rules]

The insistence JRiver provide the means to make MC look and feel like XBMC (or some other inferior competitor) is a waste of time. It's also an unnecessary distraction from the possibility of incremental improvements that would allow for more variety in the visual style of Theatre View.

That is you opinion, I do not think its a waste of time. Neither do i see how this is a distraction from incrementasl improvments either. Changing the system for more flexibility can be done incrementally or it can be done non-incrementally.

[struct]

another 2c....

I don't think I would ever create a skin, so I don't feel like I should ask for an overhaul of the skinning system (though I could see a benefit, I can also see how hard that would be). So I am going to suggest some incremental ideas that aren't just about making it look pretty, but are about making the information convey faster and more graphically ...

(some is rehash of previous suggestions, so please forgive repeat)....

... make it easy for me to decifer my meta-data in a more graphical way.  I find quite a few screens very empty and could be filled with more graphical objects.  In concept I would like to see the info panel supplemented by a new customizable window or space that can be populated with graphical movie information, e.g. MPAA symbol for PG-13, the media resolution converted into a DV, Blu-ray, HD or other symbol, stars for TVDB rating, trademarks for the studio.  There must be a reasonable subset of items that we would like to see and then use expressions to turn them on/off etc.  Yes this information can be put in the info panel, but it is kind of clunky with one line per data item (though I suppose a fancy expression could be used).  This won't affect the navigation, only what we see.

I think there should also be some tweaking of some "typical" view types that add value to what 80% of people use.  We seem to be a little constricted to the current info panel and generic types that work across a huge spectrum of possibilities.  We don't need to loose the flexibility, just add a few view types that reflect that the majority are viewing movies and TV series.  e.g. TV series....  Some custom view types  that include banner art and season art (with some graphical symbols as above).   You don't need to make such a view completely customizable, keep the current system for that, just add your best guess as to what we might want to see.  This is akin to the pop-up window in standard view; you have not made it customizable, and it is not perfect, but it is better than nothing.  

Rick.ca had some examples a while ago where the horizonatal file list that used to show one thumbnail for each episode now just shows one thumbnail as all episodes have the same season image.  He added a custom .log file and "tricked" mc, but we shouldn't have to, there should be a "TV Series" list type that changes the default behavior.

Sure we will all complain that we want to chanage xy and z, but it would be a start.

Craig