INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => JRiver Media Center 18 for Windows => Topic started by: emejay on August 17, 2012, 07:52:36 pm
-
Hi all,
I recently purchased MC and I'm hoping to make a full conversion to it after many years of using XBMC for Home Theatre and iTunes for mobile device syncing. I'm still learning MC but Here is my wishlist for MC18 based on my experience with MC17 so far:
1. Watched/Listened to indicator (in addition to play count)
- I know that play counts are available but a quick visual indicator to let users know where they left off in watching a TV series or listening/watching a podcast is a very important feature, particularly for theatreview
2. Podcasts
- ability to separate video and audio podcasts and access them separately from the 'Audio' and 'Video' heading in Theater view
- ability to only keep (and sync) unwatched/unlistened to podcasts - presently you can only tell MC to keep podcasts based on number, size, or date range - for those of us who listen to a lot of podcasts the ability to tell it to delete listened-to podcasts is very important
3. Initial Theaterview set-up tuned to typical use for media
- I know that part of the power of MC is how customizable everything is but I think it would be nice (and much more welcoming to new users) if the media sub-types in theaterview were set-up more intuitively; for example, tv shows should default into series view, then season, the way in which most people are likely to access it (I have figured out how to do this but it took some time and seeing every episodes from 14 seasons of the Simpsons in a single list put me off in my first experience)
- In a similar vein, it would be good to see labelling of video programs in theatre view more intuitive and similar to other HTPC applications by default; for example, tv shows labelled with episode number and episode name by default, even little things like having the season display as "Season 1" instead of "1" when you turn on season view - I think that little things like this will go a long way to giving a very positive first impression to HTPC users who are used to 7MC with Media Browser or XBMC
Thanks for hearing me out and I apologize in advance if anything is already in MC and I just haven't found it or learned how yet.
-
I don't use podcasts so I'm ambivalent about #2. That said, I enthusiastically agree about #1 & #3. The watched status is something I use every day in XBMC. The DIY nature of Theaterview helps make it powerful, but the initial setup is a big turnoff and many potential users won't spend the time to do the research to figure how how to configure it.
-
All of these things can be done in a variety of different ways already.
Perhaps the default Theatre View configuration would be better (I don't know—I have no idea what it looks like) if everyone agreed these things are necessary, and on exactly how they should be provided. It would not be helpful to the extent it perpetuates the misconception the default is anything more than an example of something you should be configuring to your own needs. Or that a one-size-fits-all default configuration is essential because configuring it to individual preferences is too difficult.
The sad truth is a large portion of users can't even be bothered thinking about what they want, automatically making configuration an impossible task. What they don't seem to appreciate it's equally impossible a default configuration will meet all their needs. Furthermore, the idea the default configuration is flawed because its not identical to that of another program that doesn't offer anywhere near the same flexibility in its configuration seems rather absurd. Yes, some advanced features take some research and time to master. But for those who know what they want, the simple and consistent menu system is easy to learn and straightforward to configure.
This sort of thing is probably best considered when deciding which software best suits one's needs. There's nothing wrong with WMP and XBMC, especially for those who don't want or need the power and flexibility of MC.
-
Most of it can be done, yes. The only problem is that the way of getting there is sometimes very difficult for normal users.Take the example of creating a graphical representation of Seen/Not Seen instead of a Number Plays counter. This is pretty much a default in XBMC, Plex and other similar MC's. It can be done in MC17/18 as well, but messing with ridiculous long code samples to make it work is not something most people are gonna do. Even I have problems throwing my self at this task, even though I'm a computer nerd. How can we expect computer newbies to do this? Sure, they can ask here. But there will always be a small portion of users visiting forums for help. Unfortunately.
I most definitively think that such elements should be added as default, and improved. Such systems have been discussed numerous times before. I'm crossing my fingers for version 18 being the one to bring us more user friendly configuration.
-
Agree with MrHaugen
-
I agree too. I want to configure mc quick and simply. I just don't have time to learn programming. I like XBMC for its simplicity and I too tried to emulate it when I bought mc it meant asking loads of questions some answered well others not so well.
We could do with some modes/templates that will give the same functions as other media centre we could use as a starting point. MC is so much more powerfully we can then branch out a little.
By the way I love MC especially the sq, ability to use two different audio outs at the same time and of course gizmo :-)
-
I agree too. I want to configure mc quick and simply. I just don't have time to learn programming.
That doesn't tell the whole truth. The phrase should probably be "I want to configure MC quick and simply and get more out if it than from other solutions". Because if it would be just about quick and easy everybody would click independently on every file and watch/listen in MPC-HC and Winamp.
At the same time arguing against (good, strong) default settings can't be exactly right either. We're approaching a threshold where the flexibility of MC fights its outright usability. "There are no defaults, just options!"... aka "From the outside in you don't understand it, from the inside out we can't explain it". That would scare away everybody.
The threshold is the moment you begin to understand how to use it. You realize you don't know everything, but you understand the method to learn it. The forces that push and pull around that threshold are very subjective. That's why it's important to offer a big incentive to get past that point.
XBMC easy? Pffff. Years ago only the third time I tried I got it configured to scan my media right. I could not understand for the life of me how the Video menu had pointers to the real location files, and database abstractions at the same time. And then there where other Movies, TV series and the likes entries on the main menu. That on some skins would be hidden by default. What is wrong with this people?? What kept me going? The screenshot of the Aeon skin I saw on Lifehacker at the time. It's esthetic force trumped any difficulty 10 to 1. But that's just me and my artistic side. The engineers of this world are probably lured in by other details.
There is room for MC to get better at what it presents, the first time it presents it, in Theater View. From my POV - graphically.
-
At the same time arguing against (good, strong) default settings can't be exactly right either. We're approaching a threshold where the flexibility of MC fights its outright usability. "There are no defaults, just options!"... aka "From the outside in you don't understand it, from the inside out we can't explain it". That would scare away everybody.
Make a proposal. Better yet, set it up and send us your library.
-
May I chime in here?
I speak as a computer "enthusiast" (maybe nerd!) in that I will spend time getting the technical things tweaked, and I also appreciate good software like J Rivers.
My motivation for installing JR 17 was that WM7 would not play my flacs properly. I am now hooked on Theater View and the lovely backdrops to the music whilst making the most of the sound capabilities. I also feel an emotional attachment (a positive thing) to the spirit of the team and philosophy of J Rivers.
However and but ...... I just cannot get away from Media Browser for video. (believe me I've tried, doctor) It is so simple and just works. Add MB Plus and it will take you straight to the last unwatched episode of a TV series (try doing this with "Colombo" and you'll see the advantage).
I would really like to handle all media in J River but just cannot face any form of tagging or "programming" to do it. I am keen to try the enhanced video capability in JR.
Surely, Theater View could be persuaded to load up video by folder (TV, Films, Musical etc) simply? That would be a great start for a newbie.
Thanks for a great product.
-
Make a proposal. Better yet, set it up and send us your library.
Have there not been lot's of examples? Glynor has shared his library. I'm not sure how for instance the caption looks there. But it's bound the be better than the defaults, right?
And I think Rick have posted his caption code as well. Not sure if it was complete or just some portions of it though. That might be the most complete example I've seen to date.
I'm willing to dig into this my self if there is a good chance that the defaults can change for the better. But I think that there are others that are better suited for the task.
-
Surely, Theater View could be persuaded to load up video by folder (TV, Films, Musical etc) simply? That would be a great start for a newbie.
Go into the Theater View view setup and add an item to the menu that is categorised by folder. It's that easy!
-
Go into the Theater View view setup and add an item to the menu that is categorised by folder. It's that easy!
OK, I will try it.
I have read in the v 17 forum that this process required tagging?
To be clear ---
Can I load two folders "TV" and "TV-DVD" into Theatre View but have Theatre View display as one folder called "TV"?
Thanks for the response!
-
I have read in the v 17 forum that this process required tagging?
Not for pure folder views, no.
Can I load two folders "TV" and "TV-DVD" into Theatre View but have Theatre View display as one folder called "TV"?
Err, probably this requires some manipulation, this is not then a view on folders!
If you want to do some custom things then I'm afraid you are going to have to learn how to customise MC to your own requirements. Experiment with the standard views in the client first of all without going into Theater View, then you can get the views working as you want.
I'm not sure off-hand how you would do what you want to do without having the MC screens in front of me to show me what options it gives, but I think first of all you need to be clear about what you want to achieve. First of all, decide if you want a folder view or not. Merging two distinct folders into one is not a folder view. And what happens with the directory hierarchies underneath each of TV and TV-DVD - what do you want to see when you drill down into your merged virtual folder called "TV"?
If you've imported the files strategically, you might even find that MC has automatically populated the Media Type/Subtype field with TV Shows. In which case I guess Theater View should already have them split out under a heding of TV by default.
-
Well, to answer the question ...
I keep "TV" separate from "TV-DVD" so that I can immediately go to and maintain rips of my archived DVDs as necessary.
I'm not totally against amalgamating "TV" with "TV-DVD" and also "Films" with "Films-DVD".
The virtual folder "TV" would simply populate itself with all the TV shows, in alphabetical order, be they from "TV" or "TV-DVD", which is what MB does now.
I don't want this to become a thread for advocating MB, so I'll stop here and wait patiently until J Rivers becomes a degree easier to set up for video.
Thanks for the reply and interest.
I'd just like this to be added to the wish list if possible, together with the "already watched" flag.
-
Being an ex-XBMC user myself there is actually only one thing I really miss and still use XBMC for .. subtitle download.
The addon in XBMC is subliminal. 2 pushes on the remote and it's got proper subtitles for almost anything.
See, although my english is more than good enough to understand most of it, sometimes I need to turn the volume down or people mumble, talk with slang and accents (The Wire? I'm sure even Americans struggled with some of that slang!) that subtitles are a must. Manually searching websites is such a drag ... find it, download, rename, copy it, restart video. XBMC subtitle scraper automates the process, searches multiple sites and puts it in the correct folder with the proper name and activates it on the fly.
If that feature would make it to MC I would deinstall XBMC. I love many of its features, skins, etc but its all secundary to the audio and video quality MC offers.
-
I split some of the not too nice comments to a different thread:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73967.0
Please stay on topic and leave out the personal "you don't understand" sort of remarks.
-
Being an ex-XBMC user myself there is actually only one thing I really miss and still use XBMC for .. subtitle download.
I think this would be a nice addition. We would start with one or maybe two sources.
Is http://www.opensubtitles.org the best source to start with?
-
I think this would be a nice addition. We would start with one or maybe two sources.
It would be nice indeed. One less application needed.
-
I think this would be a nice addition. We would start with one or maybe two sources.
Is http://www.opensubtitles.org the best source to start with?
Awesome!
Ideally, you'd need a different source for movies and series but some sites do offer subs for both movies and series. I guess if you make this distinction from the start it be easier to add sources later that offer only subs for movies or for series, not both. For example, with the XBMC addon you can configure the scraper for series and movies separately.
For dutch, I use ondertitel.com (http://ondertitel.com/) for movies and bierdopje.nl (http://www.bierdopje.com/) for series.
If I had to choose a site for both movies and series and multiple languages, I'd say Podnapisi.net (http://www.podnapisi.net), but Opensubtitles.org isn't bad either.
What's really important with downloaded subtitles is for which release the subs are synced for. Without it, you'd almost always get the wrong subtitles and they won't be in sync which is useless.
Thanks for considering.
-
Make a proposal. Better yet, set it up and send us your library.
It's not something I can do with the library, it's what I cannot do.
The Theater View 'editor' (Items to show + Details) it's too far removed from what somebody new would understand. It's a vertical representation of items that will be displayed horizontally (most of the time), by criteria (the "Details" part) that may escape even to a veteran user. This is a tool at engineer level. Imagine I'm a new user. I want to add an item -> the sky explodes. A Category, a Library Item, a Library Item from Standard view (wait, what? but what are the other items then, standalone items with their own logic? You mean I have two types of items and I get to juggle them... how? OMG, etc, etc), and then we set up rules on them and that will affect Theater view... where? Let's see. Go in. 2 level menus/rollers, both changing as you navigate to the point that I lost track how many level 'in' I am. This can't be too attractive to a new user. You can't 'get' them. If there is the concept of incentive to keep using Theater View this is at the opposite end.
My suggestion would be to change that part where Theater view is configured into something that is closer to what Theater actually looks like. VISUALLY closer. The menus should be in there somewhere just as they show up in Theater view. Clicking on an item should allow me to set its properties with submenues, etc right there on the item so I know exactly what I'm configuring and where it will appear.
At the far end this could become a skin editor (zing!).
Another thing. The main (first) screen has more items on the second roller than on the first roller (again I'm talking defaults, not what one can do with MC). This doesn't bod well. It exacerbates the problem of having to navigate too much to get something done (meaning played). Especially that further down the road as I navigate I have to go through a screen showing the detailed information about an item (I'm talking mainly video at this point) before I can play it (this has been discussed before).
I believe this is something worth noting. Theater view aims too hard to show you everything before you can play something, across all its views. I see 2 options: show info and items on the same view (this is what XBMC excels at on some of its more complex views) or show the items, no metadata (for whoever wants to keep it simple). And that's it, I can play stuff straight from there, don't force the user to go anywhere else. If I wanna see advanced/complete information about an item, that would be an option - key press, something - leading to a new screen maybe with a bigger poster and listing everybody down to the guy that held the boom.
I'll make an analogy. You remember how Firefox looked by default circa version 3? With icons with text names, and multiple menu, bookmark, nav, addons and so on bars? How does it look today? Simplified down to the core. And it seems everybody is happy.
Again this is all about defaults. The options to change them should still be in there, nobody's losing anything.
-
XBMC easy? Pffff. Years ago only the third time I tried I got it configured to scan my media right. I could not understand for the life of me how the Video menu had pointers to the real location files, and database abstractions at the same time. And then there where other Movies, TV series and the likes entries on the main menu. That on some skins would be hidden by default. What is wrong with this people?? What kept me going? The screenshot of the Aeon skin I saw on Lifehacker at the time. It's esthetic force trumped any difficulty 10 to 1. But that's just me and my artistic side. The engineers of this world are probably lured in by other details.
FWIW, I just installed the latest XBMC and found it very difficult and illogical to use and apparently even seriously buggy. I am a total XBMC newbie, except that I have once before, years ago, quickly installed and uninstalled it. I couldn't see any magic in its interface. After I had figured out how to import my videos, it displayed them like any basic file explorer - as textual folder and filename lists. It did not have a volume control and it could not play the videos in full screen (only in a maximized window that still has the standard window controls visible) and finally it crashed in the middle of a very typical MKV video file. I am sure it can be configured to provide better user experience, but, IMO, straight out of the box, it is worse than a vanilla instance of MC.
Being an ex-XBMC user myself there is actually only one thing I really miss and still use XBMC for .. subtitle download.
The addon in XBMC is subliminal. 2 pushes on the remote and it's got proper subtitles for almost anything.
I couldn't find this feature by browsing the addons list or anywhere else. There is no need tell me where to find it - I have already unistalled the program.
-
IMO, straight out of the box, it is worse than a vanilla instance of MC.
Let's not improve MC anymore then, 'cause we're all covered. Maybe not much so against our own complacency.
I couldn't find this feature by browsing the addons list or anywhere else. There is no need tell me where to find it - I have already unistalled the program.
We're not here to make MC into XBMC, we're here to break new ground and come up with new stuff. To bump heads to spark new ideas. Sure some of us come from an XBMC angle, but I don't think that jeopardizes the core MC community and development.
-
I'll make an analogy. You remember how Firefox looked by default circa version 3? With icons with text names, and multiple menu, bookmark, nav, addons and so on bars? How does it look today? Simplified down to the core. And it seems everybody is happy.
I don't know if everyone is happy.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Usage_share_of_web_browsers_%28Source_StatCounter%29.svg/600px-Usage_share_of_web_browsers_%28Source_StatCounter%29.svg.png)
I should add, though... I'm still a happy Firefox user. I certainly have NO interest in Chrome.
I don't know... Look and feel and priorities are such a personal thing. Some aesthetic things might appeal to you, and look garish to others. But I didn't think this post (the OP) was really about aesthetics, generally, but more about defaults. As rick and others pointed out above, Theater View can do basically everything the OP asked for.
It is telling that he is asking for those things. The default library setups need work. It isn't something that we often clamor for, and it isn't a "sexy" new feature (and it is probably darn-near impossible to get us to test them for you in production). But I'd agree generally that the default Library setup (both Standard and Theater) could use a total overhaul.
The system behind it is excellent, and doesn't need much more. But the defaults don't take any of this new stuff into account.
-
I don't know if everyone is happy.
I picked Firefox to outline a longer trend; but the minimalist style comes of course under Chrome influence.
I don't know... Look and feel and priorities are such a personal thing. Some aesthetic things might appeal to you, and look garish to others. But I didn't think this post (the OP) was really about aesthetics, generally, but more about defaults. As rick and others pointed out above, Theater View can do basically everything the OP asked for.
If you're given only one tool, even a very flexible one, that's all you can use. There should be a discussion somewhere about a flexible tool vs the right tool. I was about to say something about that when somebody asked why people change captions so much but certain things change faster than I can reply.
The system behind it is excellent, and doesn't need much more. But the defaults don't take any of this new stuff into account.
Yeah, that pretty much summarized it.
-
Let's not improve MC anymore then, 'cause we're all covered. Maybe not much so against our own complacency.
We're not here to make MC into XBMC, we're here to break new ground and come up with new stuff. To bump heads to spark new ideas. Sure some of us come from an XBMC angle, but I don't think that jeopardizes the core MC community and development.
I just wanted to share my experience and add a "+1" to your comment (that I quoted above). Nothing less and nothing more.
I said: "I am sure it can be configured to provide better user experience", i.e. obviously the default install of XBMC is just a skeleton for adding the desired features. I am usually more than willing to experiment with new things (for example, I seem to have 357 folders/programs in my "Program Files"), but I realized that I would need to spend a considerable amount of time reading the XBMC forums and testing the add-ons before I could create a nice XBMC setup that I could use as a reference when posting to this and other request/development threads. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that now.
In my opinion MC is easier for a complete newbie because usually after a standard install & automatic import you can simply open Theater View and see you files automatically organized and easily start playback. I did not say that the (Theater View) interface should not be developed further.
I also did not mention iTunes (iTunes is also on-topic here), because it doesn't provide many things to configure. Its interface is quite nice and usable as it is, but it doesn't allow you to really personalize it.
-
I picked Firefox to outline a longer trend; but the minimalist style comes of course under Chrome influence.
Of course. I was joshing you a little. It was, maybe, a poorly chosen example. Chrome would have been a much better one.
For me, Chrome is too minimalist, which is part of why I avoid it. And, frankly, Google knows quite well enough about me (http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2010/12/the-free-model.html), thanks.
-
Alex B, I don't think any of the long time JRiver users would find XBMC much to their taste overall. But XBMC have a few ideas and twists that JRiver would be smart to at least look into and consider.
- One thing is file captions. That is almost non existent in a default Theater View setup. We need something other than [Name] as default. A semi-complex code, which users can edit and tune if they need to, but also one that works for most of us out of the box. A better caption management would also be a very nice addition.
- Second thing that XBMC does well is to provide visual representation of the media. They use graphic where ever it's possible and logical (at least some skins). They use icons for watched, not watched, video and music properties etc, instead of showing it all in text. I pretty sure when I say that most of us perceives graphical elements much faster than we read text. And in most cases, it looks better, and it has the additional bonus of taking less space in some cases.
- The third thing XBMC and other MC's do well is to represent summary data for movies, series, music and photos in a good way. Element counters, relational data and so on. That is somewhat difficult to do in MC, as MC only shows info on the file level, not on categories above.
- Another beautiful thing with XBMC is it's plug-in architecture. You can browse to the desired plug-ins, click, download, install and XBMC can get a totally new feel. It can be a new service, it can be a new skin, it can be different navigation controls, subtitle download plug-in or what ever. Just with a few clicks on a remote. That is something worth thinking about.
Other than those 4 points, XBMC is total rubbish. I have tried it every couple of years and I shrug every time, I have to go back to MC Theater View after a few hours of testing. It's not THAT logical, the controls are a pain at times, simple things can be hard to fix and so on. MC is so much more effective and customizable overall.
Except for the plug-in part, I think must of this is pretty straight forward to do something about. At least the default caption. I think it would go a long way of pleasing newcomers as well as old MC users.
-
I've suggested this in the past and I'll put it out there again -
One of the strengths of MC is the great number of ways to customize it, and that is also what makes it too complex for many first time users. So why not write some wizards that allow a new user to quickly set it up? This insulates the new user from the complexity until they have a functioning setup. Then they can delve into the guts to make those additional tweaks they may want.
-
I've suggested this in the past and I'll put it out there again -
One of the strengths of MC is the great number of ways to customize it, and that is also what makes it too complex for many first time users. So why not write some wizards that allow a new user to quickly set it up? This insulates the new user from the complexity until they have a functioning setup. Then they can delve into the guts to make those additional tweaks they may want.
Absolutely.
+1
-
So why not write some wizards that allow a new user to quickly set it up?
What, exactly (or even vaguely), would such wizards do?
It seems to me MC has gone past what wizards normally do for setting up application—in an attempt to make things fully automatic. Essentially, the program automatically scans the system for media, imports it, updates the database and displays the data in stock views. That's obviously done with the same goal in mind—to get new users up and running without having to do any configuration.
Unfortunately, this approach comes with a price—one which I believe outweighs the benefits. After witnessing this installation routine, it's quite reasonable for a new user to assume all of this should just work. Not only is that very unlikely to happen, the user ends up with a fully populated library with no clue how to configure it.
A more traditional wizard-based installation could guide the user through fundamental aspects of the configuration. Accepting defaults would end in the same result, but just leading the user through the steps would provide an effective overview of how things work in general and a familiarization will key configuration dialogs and settings. They could be the sort of wizards that can be run at any time. Those would be very helpful for the new user who knows something is wrong, but needs some sort of checklist to guide them through the relevant settings. Providing links to things that might logically be done next after a wizard is finished—Configure Auto-Import, Manage Library Fields, DSP Studio, Configure Theatre View—would make new users a little more aware of these things.
There's no value in hiding the power and flexibility of MC. A little education up front would go a long way to helping new users through the phase where this seems more like a hindrance than a blessing.
-
Such wizards could give the users choice of different things like Caption presets, View templates, adding watched indicator effect on media items or not, what elements to add to the info panes and so on. You could do so much here. Literally matching the presentation of MC to the users expectations and usage, and tailoring it to their need. The wizard would be a way to help the users find something that is close to what they want. They could still be informed that you could do MUCH more manually in options later on. And the Wizard could be skipped by experienced users.
There's little value of hiding flexibility, yes. But it is imo a very high value in camouflaging the complexity for new users. To give them something they are quite happy with from the start, and then make them investigate the possibilities after a while. Not overwhelming them with complexity and options the minute they start the trial. MC is complex. There have been work to reduce the complexity for new users, but more is required before we can get a hook in all those "novice" media users :)
Starting help such as a wizard should be nothing but positive for new users and the sale of MC18. A few extra clicks on first install should not kill any of us long time users either.
-
Re the hiding the power of MC ....
Can I put it this way?
I consider myself only a moderate "power user" compared to others here, and I know that MC is very powerful, that's why I bought it, but use it for music only, which is fab -- clear as a bell.
I'm afraid that it just does not do it for me for video in the sense of handling all the shows and presenting them in Theatre View for watching, for reasons stated above.
So, I stay with Media Browser which really touches the spot and does everything I want it to ......... so, the choice is mine when I invest the time and effort to change video to MC.
However, I want to choose when I delve into the engine and do it in my own time. This is the point - ok, I can read here what others have done, note it mentally, and try it when I'm ready.
Maybe I'm in the wrong market for the power of MC for the video side, which is my loss, I feel.
But, I do feel that a simple wizard would help:
"Where are your vids -> browse -> select- -- > does the selected folder contain TV shows, Films, etc? --> yes, no, doesn't matter --- > add another folder of the same type of show? ------ DONE!"
Long post, sorry.
-
I think there may be a bit of confusion here.
Wizards have nothing to do with hiding the flexibility of MC. If you cancel or choose not to run the wizard then you're presented with the regular interface.
For music MC'ers the current startup may be sufficient. However if I'm a MB/WMC/XBMC/etc user evaluating MC the initial setup is lacking. A typical HT user will already have a video collection. MC doesn't find videos on my NAS or configure TheaterView for me. Currently I have to browse the forum or the wiki/help to figure out where I get it to locate my videos. Umm, now how do I get it to start in Theaterview? Why aren't my TV shows under TV Shows and Movies under Movies? How do I get it to show seasons under a TV show and episodes under that? How do I get it to show movies by genre or diplay all my James Bond movies in one set?
All the above is doable. It just takes a lot of research and fiddling around. A lot of people evaluating MC will just give up. I have in the past. My though process was - this is going to take quite a while to set up to get to where I'm already at. I'd rather not go through all this again. I guess I'll just stick with what I have...
-
What, exactly (or even vaguely), would such wizards do?
I think you've answered you own question quite well...
A...wizard-based installation could guide the user through fundamental aspects of the configuration. Accepting defaults would end in the same result, but just leading the user through the steps would provide an effective overview of how things work in general and a familiarization will key configuration dialogs and settings. They could be the sort of wizards that can be run at any time. Those would be very helpful for the new user who knows something is wrong, but needs some sort of checklist to guide them through the relevant settings. Providing links to things that might logically be done next after a wizard is finished—Configure Auto-Import, Manage Library Fields, DSP Studio, Configure Theatre View—would make new users a little more aware of these things.
-
I think you've answered you own question quite well...
I should hope so. The question was rhetorical. ;)
Contrary to "insulat[ing] the new user from the complexity," a well-designed wizard could gently provide some awareness of how things work and what is configurable, thereby reducing the perceived complexity. My main point is the effort to remove all complexity leaves many users in the position of seeing the whole thing as mysterious and hopelessly complex. It would be helpful to replace that sort of confusion with, "This isn't right...maybe I should run that wizard again," or "This is okay for now...I know I can modify it when I'm ready (to learn how to do so)."
-
I think there may be a bit of confusion here.
Wizards have nothing to do with hiding the flexibility of MC. If you cancel or choose not to run the wizard then you're presented with the regular interface.
For music MC'ers the current startup may be sufficient. However if I'm a MB/WMC/XBMC/etc user evaluating MC the initial setup is lacking. A typical HT user will already have a video collection. MC doesn't find videos on my NAS or configure TheaterView for me. Currently I have to browse the forum or the wiki/help to figure out where I get it to locate my videos. Umm, now how do I get it to start in Theaterview? Why aren't my TV shows under TV Shows and Movies under Movies? How do I get it to show seasons under a TV show and episodes under that? How do I get it to show movies by genre or diplay all my James Bond movies in one set?
All the above is doable. It just takes a lot of research and fiddling around. A lot of people evaluating MC will just give up. I have in the past. My though process was - this is going to take quite a while to set up to get to where I'm already at. I'd rather not go through all this again. I guess I'll just stick with what I have...
That's exactly what was trying to say!
-
Do people really need a wizard to import videos, while things are as simple as Tools/Import?
C'mon ...
-
Do people really need a wizard to import videos, while things are as simple as Tools/Import?
The issue is clearly not as simple as it's being made out to be. A better question might be, if videos are organized in a logical and perfectly consistent manner—as they likely are if some other media manager was being used—why would 'Carnac' need to guess the media type and how to extract the necessary data from the file pathname? The design premise must be that some users are not this organized, and the Carnac aspect of the system is necessary for them. Unfortunately, this means they never have to get organized, and if they do, they may continue to be plagued by Carnac's bad guesses (e.g., "All my media is well organized; why aren't all my TV shows under 'TV Shows' in Theatre View?).
This is just one of a number of examples where attempts to make things easier for a some results in more complexity for all. The Carnac function would have been better placed in a wizard that guides new users towards consistent file organization and an effective configuration for whatever that is. That might look something like, "The program has detected what appear to be the indicated media types in the following folders. Please make corrections as necessary. Note that if a folder contains more that one media type, different types may have to be moved to separate folders if the program is to be able to classify them correctly—now and in the future." One of the media type specifications could be 'Use Carnac to determine'—for those situations where, for whatever reason, a folder must remain a mixture of media types.
As it stands now (which is unlikely to change), the most effective way to 'fix' Carnac exceptions is to use Auto-Import rules to set the correct values (here (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73893.msg502425#msg502425) is a good illustration). Yes, an example of using the awesome power of MC to make things as simple as they should have been in the first place, but what else are you going to do? ;)
-
No denying that Theater view needs work, I just don't think wizards are the way to go in this respect.
-
No denying that Theater view needs work, I just don't think wizards are the way to go in this respect.
Yes, in the case of Theatre View, it's difficult to imagine how a wizard could help. What's needed there is a friendlier, more flexible configuration UI. One of Theatre View's greatest strengths is the simple elegance of it's design. Unfortunately, this was not reflected in it's configuration.
-
20 posts above I believe I suggested exactly that. Why can't there be a Theater View Configurator/editor that actually looks like Theater View (at scale, not full screen)? Menu items should have Properties (Enable, Disable, Set rules for what they trigger, etc), the views should have options - set the user default choice for each type of media, and any other properties that can be applied top to bottom. And so on.
-
Why can't there be a Theater View Configurator/editor that actually looks like Theater View (at scale, not full screen)?
While some sort of preview function (even just a mode switch between the same menu in the configuration and in Theatre View) would be helpful, I certainly don't agree with this. Having to select properties of specific menus and elements from a graphic representation would be even more frustrating to use than what we have now. I'm not sure what the answer is, but a big part of the problem with the current system is that it hides most of the settings—making it difficult to tell what a menu does without opening a number of different dialogs to see what the settings are. And, of course, to the inexperienced user, looking at those settings one-at-time doesn't mean much.
The simple consistent structure of Theatre View lends itself to a tree-like presentation of it's configuration. Maybe something like...
Main menu item
Rules for file display
Expression
Sorting
File caption (expression) override for this view
Direct links to applicable File Info Panel templates
Sub-menu name
Rules for file display
Expression
Sorting
Options
Direct links to applicable File Info Panel templates
Roller item
Category name
Field, path, expression, etc.
Category name
Field, path, expression, etc.
Etc.
Etc...
[Afterthought] 8)
The idea is to show, to the extent possible, what each menu item does by displaying it's actual settings. Any sort of overview could be displayed by expanding and collapsing branches. Some of them—particularly expressions—might mean little to a new user, but double-clicking such a branch would show them in the usual dialog where they are less cryptic (and where, of course, they can be modified). Nesting and menu order would be supported by drag-and-drop, and any branch could be copied and pasted to another applicable parent (a great help for building similar but different menus). There would be the option to 'disable' (and hide) any branch—to support a number of purposes: Backing up an existing branch while modifications are made to a copy; hiding alternate views while deciding which one is preferred; archiving superseded or rarely used branches; etc. An import/export function could be included for archiving, backing up and exchanging any branch with other libraries. All these functions could be provided on a branch context menu, along with commands for adding any applicable child items.
I don't think there's any question something like this would be much more effective for experienced users. It might seen it could be even more overwhelming for new users, but I don't think so. It's ability to show an overview of the entire configuration while exposing the settings would remove much of the mystery of the current UI. Although there would still be a learning curve to ascend, this would be greatly assisted by clearly showing the relationship between behaviours observed in Theatre View and the settings that drive them (as in, "ah, that's why the TV Shows view does that and the Movies view does not.") Some things that remain a mystery when examined in detail make perfect sense when easily compared to other similar things. Also, the combination of the copy, paste and hide branch functions (together with easy switching between the configuration UI and the resulting Theatre View) would make it easy to learn by trial & error.
Such a UI would also open the door to other ways of supporting new users. For example, disabled alternative stock views that might be preferred due to user circumstances or preferences. For many reasons, it would be helpful to provides a 'menu comment' for documenting the configuration and display in a tooltip. Here, that could be used to indicate what such an alternate view is intended to be (e.g., "An XBMC-like menu for TV Series" or "Movies safe for family viewing by Decade and Genre"). Doing so might motivate users to exchange their favourite views, further increasing understanding and the willingness to use the configuration system.
-
The problem is that we're not (well, a new user it's not) in the business of expanding and collapsing branches. The business is (my view) to 1) organize the content in a make-sense and pleasant enough way to facilitate viewing; 2) viewing the content is the business.
So I have 2 questions:
- what are the core criteria we're trying to satisfy with Theater View 'cause I'm not sure anymore. MC it's a very, very flexible application but Theater View is an interface, a 10ft interface. As a subquestion here ask if Theater View was actually developed with less flexibility in mind than MC itself, then maybe that's why we're stuck and there is no way out but a rewrite. Totally going off the rails subplot - compare features developed at Pro level in MC with features developed at Entertaining level (and left there).
- who, and if at all possible to be identified, how many users need an expression to define a view. My opinion is that if you're a regular user and you need to write an expression with functions and whatnot to define a view then a) there's something wrong with your content; b) there's something wrong with the core logic this application is pushing; 3) you're an advanced user with advanced requirements, and you're a minority and the application should not cater up close and personal to you' but more to the side, after you press a button that says "all bets are off".
Movies, Series, Pictures, Music. That's it, 4 types of media (let's leave pdf and likes as a special niche). I wanna know how did we get from these to expressions and complicated file captions, and expand/collapse a zillion options. And I wanna know how many (new) users don't understand anything from them vs how many pro users actually take advantage of them.
-
The problem is that we're not (well, a new user it's not) in the business of expanding and collapsing branches.
I disagree. Everyone is familiar with the behaviour, and even if some are not inclined to use it here, that hardly constitutes a 'problem'. Such things normally come with 'expand/collapse all' commands which would serve them well. In this case there could be such commands—one for options (so 'collapse all' would result in an uncluttered view of the menu structure) and one for submenus (so 'collapse all' would result in just the main menu items, one of which could then be expanded to the sub-menu of interest).
As a subquestion here ask if Theater View was actually developed with less flexibility in mind than MC itself, then maybe that's why we're stuck and there is no way out but a rewrite.
No, it wasn't. The essential design of Theatre View is one of the shining examples of flexibility and power in MC. I believe Matt has said the configuration UI is not something he's proud of.
how many users need an expression to define a view.
All of them. '[Album]' is an expression. A single field might be used in an expression category simply so the caption can be something different. '[Released] [Album]' is an expression. All searches are expressions. Expressions are ubiquitous in MC. Those having an aversion to expressions should be using iTunes.
I wanna know how did we get from these to expressions and complicated file captions, and expand/collapse a zillion options.
If it were that simple, there wouldn't be any need to configure anything. Those who need such over-simplification would find WMC a better choice of media manager, but surely no one wants that. With the exception of File caption (expression) override for this view, what I described is just a better way to present the options that we already have. I'm fighting a losing battle, but I know the idea of hiding options and functionality out of fear users will be too stupid to understand them is misguided. It only results in more confusion and frustration. Those who are happy with the simple stock menus will likely find this sort of presentation easy to understand (e.g., no one can be confused by complex expressions that do not exist). But they don't care anyway. Those who do would find this much more functional and easier to use. And, as I tried to explain, it would also provide a better overview of how things work, making the whole thing less intimidating. It might be used in the absence of the need to change anything—just to gain some insight as to how things work.
-
All of them. '[Album]' is an expression. A single field might be used in an expression category simply so the caption can be something different. '[Released] [Album]' is an expression. All searches are expressions. Expressions are ubiquitous in MC. Those having an aversion to expressions should be using iTunes.
This explains everything and, to me, highlights an attitude problem. You seem to be saying that those who are too stupid to use "expressions" are certainly not clever enough to join your exalted ranks. Is this so? And, are we also just too lazy as well?
You forget those who are keen to join you but not willing to spend time (and I mean time as in hours, not just a couple of mouse clicks) to configure something that other humbler software just does straight out of the box .....
I have spent many hours here over the last months asking questions and TRYING to pick things up as I go.
I am sad (yes, sad) to tell you that I can see absolutely no reason to move my video collection to MC from Media Browser (music is a different matter and I use MC for that).
Perhaps you could enlighten a moron .....
-
A bit of respect and understanding goes a long way folks ... let's keep it civilized OK?
-
This explains everything and, to me, highlights an attitude problem.
I was only suggesting no MC user could possibly be confused by the existence of expressions in a configuration. If they were, they would have reverted to iTunes long before attempting to configure Theatre View.
I have spent many hours here over the last months asking questions and TRYING to pick things up as I go.
And I'm suggesting a better designed Theatre View configuration UI would have made those hours less frustrating and more productive. Why are you against that? What, exactly, do you want? You've indicated support for 'wizards', yet no one has described how a wizard would guide someone through a Theatre View configuration. I don't think anything of substance could be accomplished that way. It certainly couldn't be any where near as flexible and effective as what I've suggested. Nothing could be simpler than choosing among alternative stock menus and disabling those not needed. And if you chose to make modifications, the UI would be pretty much self-explanatory.
Just to be clear, I previously indicated exactly where I believe well designed wizards could be used to good effect. It seems to me correct configuration choices in those areas will ensure at least the stock views in Theatre View work as intended. The result would be Theatre View working 'out of the box' as well as any other software.
-
Here's what (IMO) a wizard should do:
Set up sources for Movies, TV Shows, Pictures, and Music, allowing multiple sources for each media type.
Set up the home screen and give the user some options on how it looks.
Go through each media type and give the user some options on how each submenu will look. IE Do you want Newly Added, Title, Genre,etc submenus, and how do you want each to appear. These options would vary based on the type of media.
The user is warned if there are any issues, IE the user defines a location for Music but no music is found there.
The different media submenu/views options should have enough variety so that the majority of users can get a result that is close to what they want. IE in a TV Show submenu/view one option would be ShowName/Season/Episode#.
The purpose (IMO) of a wizard should not be a replacement for all the possible controls, but a tool that will make it easy for a new user to get their system up and running quickly. There's a reason a lot of software systems use wizards, and that is because they work.
As to the itunes comment. There are really 3 types of people when it comes to HTPCs. The vast majority will never have a HTPC and don't have the skills or inclination to ever implement one. They can use itunes. Then there are the tech types that understand the concepts of expressions and have the knowledge and skills to hack through MC to get a working setup. The last group are those with a little understanding or limited time to implement MC but are technical enough to want/understand the advantages of a HTPC. That is the group a wizard will help and those are the people that will buy MC instead of giving up.
-
There are really 3 types of people when it comes to HTPCs.
Fine, let's look at it your way. There are iDiots, geeks and normal users. Normal users are those intelligent, pragmatic people who consider the need to configure anything without being spoon-fed 'hacking'. If media is identified correctly (which, as I've acknowledged, may be better ensured using a wizard rather than automatic guessing), the default Theatre View will work. That, surely, is the best solution for most of these users—who don't want to waste time configuring things. For the rest (geek wannabes?), are they really going to be better served by a wizard than the configuration UI I've suggested? Given that the stock configuration works (and the configuration could offer any number of working alternative menus easily activated/deactivated according to preference), how is the wizard designer to guess what it is the user might what that's not already available? Even if successful, everyone is going to need to use the configuration UI eventually. Shouldn't it be easy to understand and use?
It seems to me the real issue here is that busy (and perhaps impatient) users are running into a barrier that causes them to dismiss the whole thing as hopelessly complex. I'm suggesting that barrier be removed—by making the configuration more transparent, flexible and easier to use. No one looking at such a tree-like representation of a tree-structured menu can fail to understand what it represents. It will be easy to isolate any menu of interest and view all it's applicable settings. Being able to see those settings for other menus at the same time may be all a user needs to understand what needs to be changed. More importantly, it would dismiss the false notion things are hopelessly complex. They are, in fact, rather straightforward, logical and consistent.
An issue caused by sheltering users from how things work cannot be solved by continuing to do so. If an automatic set up and stock views work, that's great. But it often won't, and everyone will eventually need to configure things directly anyway. What's needed is a better configuration UI.
BTW, another advantage of such a UI: Someone having trouble could post a screenshot of the menu's configuration. In many cases, experienced users would readily see the problem and could offer solutions. As it is now, many don't even know where to find the relevant settings, and experienced users have to guess what the cause of the problem might be. Even happy endings leave intact the notion the thing cannot be configured by mere mortals.
-
Rick, you're writing like such a thing as a wizard and a better view management can not co-exist. That is not the case. I cheer for your suggestion of simplifying the view manager! To make it better. It really needs that so normal users can use it better. By the way... Such concrete suggestions that you made here would be better served for a specific thread on that topic I think. I would be happy to brainstorm and find a better solution.
I think that a Wizard would help that part of the users that base their first impression solely on the defaults. This is probably a big group of users. They see that Theater View view differs to much from their favorite Media Center, and they drop it. They miss the bling, they miss the lack of Watched/not Watched indicators, they miss Seasons from the Series view and so on. Small things, but still things that can be enough for them to drop it. I've seen this several times my self. They will probably not even start looking at the View Manager, even if it was dead simple.
If Theater View had a wizard for initial configuration of what views to add, what skins to use (with a preview), what themes to use (with a preview), possible location selectors for different media so carnac does not miss so much, items to add or remove from the rollers, I think that there would be a HUGE bump in user satisfactory with the modified "defaults" and there would be less problems with carnac misses.
All media centers might not have such a wizard, but you can still easily change such things with the remote in most application. It's a few clicks away, and the options are more limited so it's easy to find for novice users. We need to go to standard view and into a quite overwhelming (for new users) options interface. And that makes MC17/18 very different from other Media Centers. A wizard could be our way of helping the users with normal settings without having to go through a bunch of options.
-
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...
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I've just logged this problem http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=74151.msg503122 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?