More > JRiver Media Center 18 for Windows
Wish List: New MC User from XBMC & iTunes
BartMan01:
--- Quote from: rick.ca on August 30, 2012, 05:36:27 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: csimon on August 31, 2012, 08:29:24 am ---No, it's not useless, because using the library method you can still assign unique views to individual "devices".
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote from: BartMan01 on August 31, 2012, 09:31:47 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
I believe the above addresses this as well.
--- Quote ---In most cases, my 'general' views are identical between the standard library, Theater, and device views.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: MrHaugen on August 31, 2012, 08:38:46 am ---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...
--- End quote ---
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)...
--- Quote ---The wizard is strictly for Theatre View—things like media (sub) type have been determined correctly (perhaps because another wizard had ensured so).
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: rick.ca on August 31, 2012, 06:16:17 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: rick.ca on August 31, 2012, 06:16:17 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: rick.ca on August 31, 2012, 06:16:17 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version