Print

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

[csimon]

I'll make sure I duck when I say this.

What about an easy-to-use wizard or some other view configurator tool as is being discussed here, but...

....just ONE tool that can be used to create views that can then be assigned to ANY of the browsing facilities, e.g. client view, theater view, DLNA, Web services.  In other words, the previously discussed unified/global view library.  This doesn't mean that ALL views have to be in EVERY facility, just that you can have one library of views and each browsing facility can have any of them assigned to it.

I guess what constitutes a "view" is that it is nestable and can be inserted into any browsing facility's menu tree at any point.  At the simplest level, there could be just one view with branches for Audio, Video and Images, and multiple categories beneath them, then once defined you can assign the whole thing to Theater View and Gizmo, for example.  Or you could set up 3 separate global views for each of Audio, Video and Images, set up a Video item in Theater View only and nest your global video view in it, and set up audio and images trees in DLNA and Gizmo and nest the Audio and Images global views in them.

I guess the concept will be quite tricky to implement though...

[Bizarroterl]

Rick,
I fully agree that the configuration tools currently available need to be revised so that they're more logical and available in one location. 

If the configuration tools were well thought out a wizard may not be needed, but in today's I want it now world I can see where a wizard would almost always be a valuable tool. 


Either way, it's clear that to expand the Theaterview customer base some additional work on making the setup/configuration easier would be to JRiver's benefit.  I've always been very impressed with JRiver's attitude/support.  Each time I do a test install of Theaterview I say to myself - "These guys are just a little ways away from being the best HTPC solution out there."

[rick.ca]

In other words, the previously discussed unified/global view library.

If that idea includes some way of specifying "use this view on that device, except the parts of it which are not applicable or won't work," it seems to me that would get very complicated. Even if the program could handle it, it might produce unexpected or confusing results. I realize one of the benefits sought is likely the ability to make a change to a 'primary' view and have that ripple through to corresponding or similar views on other devices, but I doubt that is feasible or practical.

But the copy/paste and enable/disable functions I've suggested would at least alleviate the burden of creating similar views for multiple devices. Imagine, for example, creating and becoming comfortable with a configuration for Theatre View. Now you need to configure another device. Just copy the whole Theatre View menu tree—or any part of it—to the other device, and modify it to suit. Future changes won't 'flow-through', but that would probably make things too complicated in any case (e.g., a change could 'break' the view on the other device).

Perhaps all that's needed is something that makes it easy to view two configurations at the same time. That would facilitate comparing two configurations and copying from one to another. The 'menu tree' I've suggested probably warrants a separate window (rather than being embedded in the configuration window). The solution might be as simple as allowing multiple windows, each of which can be set to a different device.

[csimon]

If that idea includes some way of specifying "use this view on that device, except the parts of it which are not applicable or won't work," it seems to me that would get very complicated.

No - all I'm after is that you create your view once, not in Theater View, but in a new view library. Then you go into Theater View, whereupon you will se a list of all your views that you've created centrally and then choose the one that you want. Simialrly, you then go into DLNA config and browse your list of centrally-created views and then choose the one that you want. It might be the same as the one you've selected for Theater View, or it might be different.  But being able to view my media in a specific way, I then go and do some metadata editing but find that my JRiver front-end client view is not set up the same and I can't find the items I want to edit.  So I go into the client view, browse my list of centrally created views, and pick the same one as I'm using in Theater View and then I get a browse tree in the front-end that I'm used to seeing.

It's a somewhat similar concept to what is there at the moment, i.e. saving a customised view in the standard front-end, then in DLNA config being able to add an item from the standard view.  The difference would be that a) any changes made centrally would filter through to everything, because you haven't defined views separately in each place, you've just allocated them froma  cetnral lbrary; and b) you haven't got several different config tools i.e. one for front-end, one for Theater View, one for DLNA, on for Gizmo and web services etc. Any further enhancements that the JRiver team make to facilities available in views would then automatically be applied in all areas, as there would now be only one view "engine" that all areas use.

I'm not saying that all areas must use the same central views as each other, I'm just saying that there should be one central place to hold views.  Apply the same logic to what we have got at the moment with different instances of MC being able to connect to remote libraries instead of setting up a library in each instance separately.
 

[rick.ca]

If the configuration tools were well thought out a wizard may not be needed, but in today's I want it now world I can see where a wizard would almost always be a valuable tool.

As I've said, relying on a wizard would be better than making inappropriate guesses—particularly when it comes to determining media type. But if that is done, then the default Theatre View configuration should work. From there, I don't see any configuration settings that aren't either too trivial, too advanced, or for which the new user will have any basis for having a preference. It might be helpful if some other general purpose wizard ended with the option to continue with the configuration of Theatre View—in the form of a simple link to the configuration dialog. That's not of much use, but it might help make the new user aware the thing is configurable—should they not be happy with the default.

What might also help is adding a configuration command to Theatre View itself. Even if that just launches the same configuration dialog, an integrated command might do so while leaving Theatre View up (so you can 'see' what you're modifying), and then restart Theatre View on 'Apply' or 'Okay'—to apply the revised settings. Not only would this add a little convenience, it would impress upon users it is configurable—and is meant to be configured to suit personal preferences.

[rick.ca]

No - all I'm after is that you create your view once, not in Theater View, but in a new view library.

Well, I don't know. I don't use other devices, so I'm making assumptions. But I'm under the impression there are various things that just don't work on DNLA devices. And I imagine views that work well in Theatre View may not be practical on, say, a phone. Is that not the case? Or are you saying any configuration will work on any device? If so, I suppose the 'use a configuration from the library' model would work better. If not, the 'copy something from elsewhere as a starting point' model would be more direct and easier to use.

[csimon]

Well, I don't know. I don't use other devices, so I'm making assumptions. But I'm under the impression there are various things that just don't work on DNLA devices. And I imagine views that work well in Theatre View may not be practical on, say, a phone. Is that not the case? Or are you saying any configuration will work on any device?

No, no, that's where I'm being misunderstood!  I'm not saying that a central view library means that all views have to be global and have to work in ALL areas.  I'm trying to make it easier for people like me, and others, who wnat to be able to re-use the same views in more than one area without having to set it up again.  Your idea of copying-and-pasting is the right concept, and so is the option we have at the moment to "add item from standard view", but these methods won't allow changes made once to roipple through everywhere.

When you say "more than one device", I'm not particularly talking about different devices. I'm talking about the different "modes" and "servers" that MC provides.  For example, on my PC I might want to view my library in Theater View mode, or in Standard View mode. Same deivce, but the views have to be set up separately.  On my iPad I might want to use a DLNA client or I might want to use Gizmo or JRemote.  Same device, but using two different modes of operation, but each needs their views setting up separately.

I imagine views that work well in Theatre View may not be practical on, say, a phone.

Well in that case, you wouldn't assign that view to the phone! I'm not saying that views created centrally have to be global across all devices, it's just that there will be a central library of views to choose from.

I suppose the 'use a configuration from the library' model would work better.

Yes, yes!

If not, the 'copy something from elsewhere as a starting point' model would be more direct and easier to use.

But doesn't solve the problem in that if you want to make changes then you have to make the same changes everywhere that you've copied to.  Or else wipe the config and re-copy them.  That's nowhere near as easy and transparent as making the change once and it affects everything that you've linked it to.  It's like the difference, in programming terms, between having Includes files that are incorporated each and every time automatically on compile, or having subroutines or calls to standard library functions, rather than maintaining your own library of text files that you import into a program whenever you want to use a particular routine then have to go back to every program you've ever used it in in order to facilitate a bug fix in it.

[rick.ca]

But doesn't solve the problem in that if you want to make changes then you have to make the same changes everywhere that you've copied to.  Or else wipe the config and re-copy them.  That's nowhere near as easy and transparent as making the change once and it affects everything that you've linked it to.

I understood what you said, but I was questioning how common it is that an identical configuration will actually work on another device. I assume another computer using the same library (i.e., a client) has to use the same configuration anyway, so that's not the issue. Standard and Theatre views are fundamentally different (a static copy of an individual Standard view can be used as a basis for a Theatre view menu, but it doesn't always translate nicely—and it can't be updated), do that's not the issue. The functionality of DLNA is limited compared to the computer and other devices, so it's not at all clear it's configuration can be an exact copy of another. Yes, I can see it would be convenient for those who have multiple hand held devices if the same configuration really can be used for more than one. But even then, I wonder how often it is that an identical configuration will work on two different types of device. If any difference is required, then the library method is useless.

Even if there is a practical need for the library approach, it's not something that should be imposed on users who have no need for it. So it couldn't be a simple system where all configurations are maintained in a library then assigned to applicable devices. My sense is your need would be better served by the simple option to link one configuration to another. For the device so linked, there would be no configuration—just a link indicating the source. I suppose the source would need some clear indication another device is using the same configuration. For situations where a change has to be made that's not compatible with the other device, it would be handy to have the option to replace the link with a copy of the configuration prior to making the change.

[struct]

I was thinking when you change a standard view it comes up with a dialog asking which other places you would like to save the view, i.e. theatre, dlna, etc.  (It may need a one time popup asking where you want to store it in the tree for the other views).  If the view is saved in this way it is then "linked" and when you subsequently change it, it the asks if you want to update in the other views also.  If you select no or incompatibilities are found, it says it can't copy to the other views, and the link is broken.  There could be a little list at the bottom of the dialog for defining a view showing where it is linked to so that you don't forget or could later choose to link it to another view.

This has the benfit of making it clearer to the new user that the other views need some work also.

Craig

[glynor]

I gotta say...  Not relating to any specific suggestions above, but more generally...

I think better defaults are way, way more important and useful than a wizard.  I think most wizards aren't very wizardly and turn off as many novice users as they help.  The problem is essentially this:

1. To avoid intimidating a novice user, which results in them closing it and not using it at all ever, the wizard cannot ask any question the novice won't clearly know the answer to immediately (without having to "look it up").

2. If you follow rule number 1, then your wizard can't actually accomplish much of useful value (hence, most of them not being very wizardly).

I don't think many people here would construe me as a novice computer user, but even I'm often confused by the wizards I have to go through when setting up a new, unfamiliar application.  It isn't that I can't figure it out, but I often don't want to.  I just want to use the darn thing.

That's not to say that a few well-placed wizards can't help the situation, but they have to be implemented very carefully.  Initial setup wizards though, are almost always terrible.  I find them either useless, and a waste of time (lazy programming, the developers decided to "ask the user" vague and confusing questions rather than just making the "hard call" and settling on defaults that work well for most people); or I find them so detailed that they're intimidating and I typically just answer things semi-randomly to get through it, intending to "come back later".

Neither would really solve the problems here.  I do agree with Matt that the Theater View configuration UI could use a whole pile of work.  But I don't know that a hand-holding wizard is the best way to solve the problem.  Better defaults, so that most people don't NEED to change it, and a better UI for those who want to.

[rick.ca]

Better defaults, so that most people don't NEED to change it, and a better UI for those who want to.

+1.

And better defaults in a better UI (that shows, as clearly as possible, what the settings are) will go a long way in making the whole thing much easier to understand. Even the user who is happy with the default will eventually want to change something. When they do, a better UI will give them a fighting chance to see and understand what needs to be changed. And for the experienced user, having to create or debug a complicated view by opening multiple dialogs one-at-a-time is extremely inefficient and frustrating.

[MrHaugen]

I've seen both badly designed wizards, to heavy wizards that get people upset and abandon the install, as well as options that can lead to confusion. But I'm still of the opinion that if the questions is asked and the options represented is done in a logical way, it would be very beneficial for most new users, and could easily be skipped by users that don't need it.

Either way, it does not mean that better defaults and configuration improvements are not needed. I just think that a good wizard could be a very quick way of helping out novice users with otherwise confusing configuration tasks and frequently asked questions. It would give the application time to evolve and make the tools for configuration more intuitive and user friendly.

The bottom line is that something is needed to make it easier to configure and a better media playback experience for new and old users. I will not argue what of the suggested solutions that should be the number one priority. If it were up to me, I would have them all

[rick.ca]

It would give the application time to evolve and make the tools for configuration more intuitive and user friendly.

Are you suggesting it would be faster and easier to develop a well-designed wizard instead of just improving the default and the configuration UI? I don't think so. Even if was, wouldn't it be obvious it's just a sloppy workaround for a poor default and UI?

Maybe I'm just not getting how such a thing would work. Can you provide an outline of what you have in mind—based on the following assumptions/criteria? (Or if you don't agree with them, just explain why.)

• The wizard is strictly for Theatre View—things like media (sub) type have been determined correctly (perhaps because another wizard had ensured so).
• Whether or not they suit the user, the defaults do work as intended.
• For the reasons glynor explained, the wizard can only ask questions or present choices a novice would understand, and their response will not produce any results they consider unwelcome.
• When the wizard has finished, the user will understand how to use the configuration and will not have to continue to rely on the wizard.

[csimon]

I understood what you said, but I was questioning how common it is that an identical configuration will actually work on another device. I assume another computer using the same library (i.e., a client) has to use the same configuration anyway, so that's not the issue. Standard and Theatre views are fundamentally different (a static copy of an individual Standard view can be used as a basis for a Theatre view menu, but it doesn't always translate nicely—and it can't be updated), do that's not the issue. The functionality of DLNA is limited compared to the computer and other devices, so it's not at all clear it's configuration can be an exact copy of another. Yes, I can see it would be convenient for those who have multiple hand held devices if the same configuration really can be used for more than one. But even then, I wonder how often it is that an identical configuration will work on two different types of device. If any difference is required, then the library method is useless.

No, it's not useless, because using the library method you can still assign unique views to individual "devices".  I am not saying that a central vie wlibrary means that all "devices" have to use the same views, all I am saying is that the central approach means that you can use the same views across all "devices" if you want to whereas you can't do that at the moment.

Even if there is a practical need for the library approach, it's not something that should be imposed on users who have no need for it.

There is no imposition at all.  You don't have to use common views if you don't want to, people who still want to create unquqe views for every single "device" can still set them all up separately and laboriously if they want to. Wehn they acces the centrl view configurator from within Theater View, or DLNA config or whatever, it will work exactly the same way as it did before.  It will look to them as though there are individual setup facilities in each individual area, but behind the screnes it is actually the same tool biut accessed from all areas of MC.  I am not saying that all views have to be gliobal across all devices, I'm just saying that if people want to use common views then they can do so using a central library.

So it couldn't be a simple system where all configurations are maintained in a library then assigned to applicable devices.

Yes it could.  Why ever not??

Look at http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=74123.0 (a very recent thread) for how "untransparent" the current system is and how a newbie is forced to create a view in one place and then import it into a qnother place, not realising that there were sveral fdifferent places for defining views depending on what "device" he is using.  and notice that the view he wanted can indeed work in both standrad view on a PC and in JRemote on an iPad.  Contrary to what yo've said, I can't think of any situation where a view would not work on all devices, it's just a hierarchical tree of categories.  you're not thinking of the situation of using Theater View on a small phone for example?

My sense is your need would be better served by the simple option to link one configuration to another. For the device so linked, there would be no configuration—just a link indicating the source. I suppose the source would need some clear indication another device is using the same configuration. For situations where a change has to be made that's not compatible with the other device, it would be handy to have the option to replace the link with a copy of the configuration prior to making the change.

That is incredibly complicated, logically and physically, and far more complex that a simple central library or even what we've got at the moment.

[MrHaugen]

Are you suggesting it would be faster and easier to develop a well-designed wizard instead of just improving the default and the configuration UI? I don't think so. Even if was, wouldn't it be obvious it's just a sloppy workaround for a poor default and UI?

Both yes and no. If we only talk about improving view configuration and making a few changes to views and captions, then no. Probably not. But there's more to improve than just those two things.

I have not given this very much thought, but I can start by illustrating what I would see as a non intrusive but helpful Setup Wizard. This is NOT the answer. We would need much input and discussions of how to present the questions and options. But this sounds alright to me. Explanation of the functionality are written in italic


Page 1:

What kind of user are you?

• New to Media software or Media Center 18. (Setup wizard)
• Experienced Media Center user (Manual configuration)

The first option guides the user through a few pages that will help the user to set up their MC with their preferences. Second option would skip most of this, and leave MC at it's default.

Page 2 (if newbie option is selected):

Who do you store your media?


• Organized in separate folders. Local drives, on a second drive, NAS, network share or similar. I have sorted Movies, TV Shows, Audio, Images and other media in separate folders
• Mixed content on local system drive. My media is often found in a mix of folders that have more than one media type
• Mixed content on other locations. My media is not organized well, but are found on another disk, on a NAS, network share or similar.
• I'm not sure

Tip: You can select "Organized in separate folders" even if you have some mixed content folders as well.

The first option would bring you to a new page (see details below). This allows users to point to the correct locations based on the media type/sub type. The second option would be the default Carnac way of adding things "quick and dirty" from local drives. The third option could be a simpler "I have my media on this share, but it's not sorted well" option. Just as a rough import option from a custom location (not on the local drives). The last option would simply run Carnac on the local drives. Same as option two, but with elimination of possible user confusion

Page 3 (if Organized in separate folders is selected):

I imagine this being a table with pre-selected media sub types with browse buttons. The [...] button would bring up a standard file browser dialogue. The check box with auto import would add those directories to the auto import list. Something along those lines:


Media Sub Type   Path
Music                 [                ]   [....]
Movies               [                ]   [....]
TV Shows           [                ]   [....]
Images               [                ]   [....]

[ ] Enable automatic import so the folders are watched for new content.

Tip.
- More media types, media sub types and folders can be added for import through the menu: File -> Library -> Import. Here you can add, remove or edit imports.
- You should only add the folders that have just one media type in it. Mixed content folders can be added later through the import options.

• Organized in separate folders. Local drives, on a second drive, NAS, network share or similar. I have sorted Movies, TV Shows, Audio, Images and other media in separate folders
• Mixed content on local system drive. My media is often found in a mix of folders that have more than one media type
• Mixed content on other locations. My media is not organized well, but are found on another disk, on a NAS, network share or similar.
• I'm not sure

Page 4:

How do you want to use MC?


• Mixed use. I will probably use several of MC's view modes. Including Theater View
• Mixed use. Desktop setup (drop personalized setup for theater view)
• Music only (audiophile setup). Standard view exclusive. Deactivate most non music components and certain setup options
• Music only (audiophile setup). Theater View and Standard View setup. Deactivate most non music components and certain setup options
• I'm not sure

Tip: All options selected here can be edited and changed later on.

Page 5:

How do you want media text in theater view to appear?


• Example 1 of captions
• Example 2 of captions
• Example 3 of captions
• Example 4 of captions
• I'm not sure

Tip: You can select the one that are closest to what you want, and then edit the caption rules in: Tools -> Options -> Theater View -> Advanced - File caption.

This could include several possible Caption presets from users or JRiver. There's been several good suggestions. Ricks is one of the most complete ones I've seen. The "I'm not sure" option would again give the user the default, that is the widest accepted "standard".


Page 6:
What info do you want in the Small info pane?
This should be represented in a screen shot.

Preset 1       |         Preset 2        |        Preset 3     |                  
Artwork                   Artwork                 Description
Name                      Duration                Rating
Duration                  Description             Actors
Rating                     Rating
Director
Actors
 
     [ ]                      [X]                         [ ]

Tip: You can select the preset that are closest to what you want, and then edit the info panels content in edit the caption rules in: "Tools -> Options -> Theater View -> Customize file info panel..."





This would in my opinion effectively kill several of todays problems.
1. Import and auto imports questions
2. Carnac misses with sub types.
3. Captioning and missing information in Theater View
4. Editing info panels

And the list could grow. These are examples. It's very likely that there are other things that should be chosen instead, or in addition to, or removed. It's important not to throw EVERYTHING at the users, but it's also important to tailor such a system that the right options are presented to the right people. I could see View options being another page, as well as List styles perhaps. List styles is perhaps the most important thing for the first impression of Theater View. Hopefully, most users manage to change those before they make up their mind.

In this example the wizard would go from almost non existent, to more thorough for new users that want to set up theater view in their own way. Depending on the choices you select, MC would skip the unnecessary pages in the wizard. This need to be tweaked and tuned until most bases are covered, and not more info and options than necessary are presented. I would think that the path of the most options would take the user a couple of minutes to complete. I think this would be highly preferred for new users, rather than to be thrown into unknown territory and spending hours to get something close to what they want.


I'm not saying that many or most users have problems with the things listed above. But what I am saying is that new users often find those things hard to configure. And they might even lack the time or will to do so. So, they tend to look at the default views, captions, list styles, info panels, and base their first impressions on this. With such a wizard the first impression after the setup could be very much closer to what they expect, and want to see and experience.

[/list][/list][/list][/list]

[BartMan01]

I was questioning how common it is that an identical configuration will actually work on another device. ... Standard and Theatre views are fundamentally different (a static copy of an individual Standard view can be used as a basis for a Theatre view menu, but it doesn't always translate nicely—and it can't be updated), do that's not the issue. The functionality of DLNA is limited compared to the computer and other devices, so it's not at all clear it's configuration can be an exact copy of another. Yes, I can see it would be convenient for those who have multiple hand held devices if the same configuration really can be used for more than one. But even then, I wonder how often it is that an identical configuration will work on two different types of device. If any difference is required, then the library method is useless.

In most cases, my 'general' views are identical between the standard library, Theater, and device views.  Personally I think there should be ONE place where you build your views and at that location you should be able to assign where those views are used.  This way if you have a view that is used in three different places you just build it once and designate all three locations where it will be used.

At a minimum, if there are reasons to keep it like it is (with the need to independently build views in multiple areas), the ability to 'link' a view should be there so that once built a common view can be maintained from just one location.  You could still have 'copy' functionality like exists today for when you want to create a new view based on an existing one.

[rick.ca]

No, it's not useless, because using the library method you can still assign unique views to individual "devices".

I said, "If any difference is required, then the library method is useless." How is that not so? Perhaps you're just trying to ignore the simple point I was making—the utility of the library method is limited to those situations where more than one device can use the identical configuration. Had you not suggested Standard View configurations be used for Theatre View, I would have assumed this was obvious enough it didn't need to be mentioned.

There is no imposition at all...Wehn they acces the centrl view configurator from within Theater View, or DLNA config or whatever, it will work exactly the same way as it did before.  It will look to them as though there are individual setup facilities in each individual area, but behind the screnes it is actually the same tool biut accessed from all areas of MC.

Okay, it obviously wouldn't be an imposition if it's transparent to the user. But my suggestion of linking configurations is no different. A link would be chosen from a list of all existing configurations. How is that different from your library? It seems to me that's more convenient and direct than one which has you creating a separate library configuration and then assigning it to multiple devices. I imagine it's also more in keeping with the use-flow normally involved. If, for example, a new handheld device is being added, the first thing one would want to try is another existing configuration. So link it and try it. If it works, your done—and hopefully it will continue to work even if modifications are made to the original. If it doesn't (or future modifications of the original break it) turn the link into a copy and modify as required. Even if you were provided a library UI that allowed configurations to be pushed to different devices, I would think you will still want it to work this way. If you have opened the configuration UI for a particular device, why would you want to abandon that and open a library when you could just access the other configuration directly?

At a minimum, if there are reasons to keep it like it is (with the need to independently build views in multiple areas), the ability to 'link' a view should be there so that once built a common view can be maintained from just one location.  You could still have 'copy' functionality like exists today for when you want to create a new view based on an existing one.

I believe the above addresses this as well.

In most cases, my 'general' views are identical between the standard library, Theater, and device views.

This seems to include the popular misconception Theatre View can use a Standard View configuration. The fact that the configuration system can make a facsimile Theatre view from a Standard view doesn't mean there's any way to dynamically maintain it. And the assumptions made in order to create the facsimile don't always work—they can't get around the fact the views are fundamentally different. (A categories View may likely work, while a Panes View likely will not.) I'm not familiar with other devices and connection methods, but the same may be true for some of them.

[rick.ca]

I have not given this very much thought, but I can start by illustrating what I would see as a non intrusive but helpful Setup Wizard...

I had hoped the assumptions/criteria I provided would spare you much of the effort. I suppose I can still use them to keep my comments brief(er)...

The wizard is strictly for Theatre View—things like media (sub) type have been determined correctly (perhaps because another wizard had ensured so).

Page 2, 3 and 4 don't belong in such a wizard. These are matters of concern for the library and the use of the program as a whole, not just Theatre View.

For the reasons glynor explained, the wizard can only ask questions or present choices a novice would understand, and their response will not produce any results they consider unwelcome.

Page 5: Of the few things that a wizard might help a new user with, choosing among different caption expressions that produce different results based on media type and circumstances is not one of them. You're again using my expression as an example of how different could be provided—even though I've already explained that was offered as an illustration of how hopelessly complicated it is to maintain the thing in one expression. I also stated my expression simply would not work for any other library, nor could be recreated for a stock library.

Even if useful options could be provided and the wizard somehow illustrates the different forms of caption each will create, how is a new user to understand the implications when they haven't even seen Theatre View? Also, things like the view scheme they intend to use (e.g., thumbnails vs. list) and the configuration of each File Info Panel template has a direct bearing on what caption is appropriate in the circumstances. What's really needed is the ability to set a default caption for each main media type, and the option to override that at the view level. Stock expressions for the default captions could be a little more creative than '[Name]', and then won't be the sort of thing that a wizard should deal with.

Page 6: There are similar issues with attempting to provide alternatives for the info panes. They're already based on a template system, so it's not possible to select from just one set of alternatives. And even if it were feasible to offer alternatives for each template, a new user would not have a clue what that's all about. Further more, the choice of displaying items in the small pane, large pane or both is integral to the configuration. That's way beyond what a wizard could handle, and would only result in confusion. Configuring file info panels is not easy, largely because it's difficult to visualize the results while configuring them—especially when they include expressions. I think the idea that might help the most is the ability to open a configuration window on top of Theatre View, and then restart it on 'Apply' (while keeping the window open)—so the results can be viewed immediately.

So it seems there's nothing the wizard is able to do but make matters worse. I really think the overhaul of the configuration UI has to be the priority. With that in place, a 'Configuration' item on the Theatre View main menu (that opens this configuration window) would hit home the idea Theatre View is meant to be user-configurable, and this is the tool to use. If the window opened on top of Theatre View and included something like the tree-like menu representation I've suggested, it would further help the new user relate what they see to the corresponding settings. The tree could even open to the same position of the currently selected menu item. If it worked that way, who would even think of using a wizard?

[MrHaugen]

Why Rick? Why? This was just a way of showing you what I meant by a setup wizard. You had such a huge problem understanding the need of such a thing, so I thought it would be good to explain in more detail. As I said, this is NO SOLUTION. This is a few quick thoughts I had just this day.

Page 2, 3 and 4 don't belong in such a wizard. These are matters of concern for the library and the use of the program as a whole, not just Theatre View.

Where did I say in this replay that such a wizard should ONLY be used for Theater View setup? It would be almost idiotic not to take advantage of it in other part of the program if it first was implemented.

Page 5: Of the few things that a wizard might help a new user with, choosing among different caption expressions that produce different results based on media type and circumstances is not one of them. You're again using my expression as an example of how different could be provided—even though I've already explained that was offered as an illustration of how hopelessly complicated it is to maintain the thing in one expression. I also stated my expression simply would not work for any other library, nor could be recreated for a stock library.

Jesus.... Why do you have to be this way? The reason why I thought your caption examples was so good was because they implemented a few very clever things I've not seen other users use before. Like color coding watched and not watched as ONE example. You had other ideas there as well that I liked very well.
I do not remember the reason as to why you gave us the example, but it has no relevance to this exact suggestion. I agree that it's complex to maintain and edit. And I know that your exact expression will only work in your library. But it could be used as a starting point. Not an exact copy. Please do not take me for an idiot. I'm REALLY not as stupid as you are trying to make me.

Even if useful options could be provided and the wizard somehow illustrates the different forms of caption each will create, how is a new user to understand the implications when they haven't even seen Theatre View? Also, things like the view scheme they intend to use (e.g., thumbnails vs. list) and the configuration of each File Info Panel template has a direct bearing on what caption is appropriate in the circumstances. What's really needed is the ability to set a default caption for each main media type, and the option to override that at the view level. Stock expressions for the default captions could be a little more creative than '[Name]', and then won't be the sort of thing that a wizard should deal with.

No, no and no. Again, if the templates was shown in its right context, it would be no problem for users to pick out the one that fit them the best. Links with screen shots could be possible. Even if you just give the outcome in text format for both Video, Audio and Images, I think most people would be able to find what they like. EVEN if they don't know exactly where this text will be shown. I agree that default should be more than [name] in any case, but there are still things many users will have different opinions about.
One example I did not write about is views. If such a thing was added, it would be very possible to letting the outcome of the caption screen be tailored depending on what the user selected for views.

The bottom line here is that you only see the possible problems. Not the possibilities. As I've already said plenty of times, I have NO deep feelings or investments in this topic, over a management tool overhaul . But I do not like that our suggestions is hammered down by you just because you can't see further than your own ideas.

Configuration from Theater View however... that is something I'm ALL for. I've mentioned this a ton of times in the past. If such a thing was implemented and you could do more than just configuring views or info panes there, some of my examples in the configuration wizard would of course be redundant. But I still think that a quick setup guide at the initial install can be worth considering. And I'm obviously not alone.

[csimon]

I've just logged this problem http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=74151.msg503122, where Web Gizmo seems to be interpreting the same view differently from standard view and DLNA.

Don't know what's wrong yet, it might be me being confused and doing something wrong, or it might be a bug in the web view routines. either way, if there was one unified view engine library then these sort of problems would not occur.

I cannot see any situation where you would want all these different areas to interpret views differently, contrary to what rick says. If I set up a view in one place, I want to see it exactly the same in all other places.  I have no need to set up individual sets of views.

There are two issues in this thread I think:

1. An easier tool for creating Theater View views.  Wheter it's a "wizard" or a mere enhancement over existing view creation tools, it doens't really matter.

2. Why not enable this new tool in all other areas too as part of a unified view-creation tool, so that all areas can pick views from the one resource and will use the same view "engine".

As I see it, the new tool/central view library would have exactly the same facilities as the Customise View tools currently have, except that there would probably be a series of checkboxes in each view to say whether it's to be used in Standard View, Library Server, Theater View, DLNA, or Web, or a combination of all of these.

There are conifg options that are specific to each area, such as Categories/Panes in standard view, rollers/cover flow etc in Theater View, multiple servers in DLNA view, but those can be easily incorporated. What is common to ALL areas is the media library hierarchy, and it's this that we currently have to set up separately in each area and find that there are subtle differences in the view engines in those areas.

[BartMan01]

The fact that the configuration system can make a facsimile Theatre view from a Standard view doesn't mean there's any way to dynamically maintain it.

So it is possible to use a standard view item directly in Theater view, but there is no way to link them so that when I change the view in the standard view it replaces the copy in Theater view (resulting in that copy being dynamically maintained)?  That makes no sense, since I can just go in to Theater View (and device views) and delete it and re-select it form the standard view.

If there are technical reasons that we can't have a central view library, then we need the option to either 'copy' or 'use' a standard view in the other areas.  If I am 'use'ing a Standard View in Theater View, then when I change the view the Theater View copy should be replaced with my new version.  If I have 'copy'ied the view, that would not happen.  I hate having to find and replace a single view all over the system every time I need to tweak it.

Bottom line is there are two issues (from what I see) here:
One - It is a pain to maintain views across the system.  Especially for new users since views will change frequently at first as the initial setup and 'settling in' occurs.
Two - the default views/media import options are NOT (at least based on all the feedback I have seen) what most people coming from other media managers want.  There should be some work done to improve the 'out of the box' Theater View experience.

[rick.ca]

I cannot see any situation where you would want all these different areas to interpret views differently, contrary to what rick says. If I set up a view in one place, I want to see it exactly the same in all other places.

My, what clever thinking! I never said this is what you would want. I said very clearly, several times, the same view (i.e. an identical configuration) will not always produce the same result (or the result the user might expect) on a different device. So now you found one example of where this is so and reported it as a problem, while continuing to ignore what I've already explained to you.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to use the 'equivalent' configuration on another device. But it's not necessarily easily done. If it were, surely it would already be so. I believe Matt has previously indicated the 'Add library item from Standard View' function is of limited value, and perhaps should be removed—because it creates this kind of confusion. I take that as confirmation it was never intended to do what you're expecting it to do, and changing it so it converts the view to one that will work on the other device is off the table—either because it's too difficult or simply not feasible. Maybe I misunderstand the situation or the circumstances have changed (that was some time ago), but you're not going to find out by muddling this completely different issue with the question of how to improve the Theatre View configuration.

If there are technical reasons that we can't have a central view library, then we need the option to either 'copy' or 'use' a standard view in the other areas.

It seems you understand the issue I've reiterated above. But I wonder what you mean here. The ability to 'use' a Standard View in other areas (i.e., interpret what is likely expected to be the 'equivalent' view at the destination, and create that) is what is needed for the library method to work. Whatever the technical reasons preventing this are exactly the same.

So my response to you is the same. If you care about the capability you're talking about, get over the fact it doesn't exist. No matter how much you think it should, it simply doesn't. I suggest you deal with it here as the completely separate issue it is, and ask the developers if the functionality you're seeking is feasible.

I still think the answer to that question could very well change if the configuration UI were improved (and the same for all devices). If it's much easier to create and maintain one view, and that view is easily linked or copied to other devices, then the need to overcome those technical issues is dramatically reduced. You would then get exactly what you want if it works, and if it doesn't, you would simply copy it and make the modifications required. This approach will also work in situations where even the cleverest code is unable to interpret exactly what you mean by 'create a configuration like this one that will work on that device'. Even if the views are fundamentally different, this approach still allows you to use the existing view as a starting point that you can modify so it does work. Simply expecting the system to something it cannot will produce nothing.

[csimon]

My, what clever thinking! I never said this is what you would want. I said very clearly, several times, the same view (i.e. an identical configuration) will not always produce the same result (or the result the user might expect) on a different device.

It's not a diffeernt device. It's the same computer. If you would care to explain why you think Standard view and Web Gizmo would present the same view in a different order (Web Gizmo ignoring the sort order) then I'm all ears.  I think it's you ignoring what's been said here.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to use the 'equivalent' configuration on another device. But it's not necessarily easily done.

What's so difficult about getting Web Gizmo to display the same view in the same order as standard view?

If it were, surely it would already be so.

No - it could be a bug in Web Gizmo's interpretation of the view.

I take that as confirmation it was never intended to do what you're expecting it to do

Web Gizmo was never intended to perform sorts in the same way as standard view? I find that hard to believe.

changing it so it converts the view to one that will work on the other device is off the table

It's not a different device.  Have you been listening?

If you care about the capability you're talking about, get over the fact it doesn't exist. No matter how much you think it should, it simply doesn't. I suggest you deal with it here as the completely separate issue it is, and ask the developers if the functionality you're seeking is feasible.

That's the point of this thread.

I still think the answer to that question could very well change if the configuration UI were improved (and the same for all devices). If it's much easier to create and maintain one view, and that view is easily linked or copied to other devices, then the need to overcome those technical issues is dramatically reduced.

It's not a different device.

You would then get exactly what you want if it works, and if it doesn't, you would simply copy it and make the modifications required.

Could you suuggest a modification I could make in Web Gizmo to make it sort in the same order as standard view?  Both views have the same sort specification (in the display Rules) but Web Gizmo ignores it.

What are you on?