INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 11 (Development Ended) => Topic started by: Matt on August 15, 2003, 10:29:11 am
-
Here's a concept for how we think MC could work. The idea is to make a unified system to look at your library and your playlists. (instead of how they're different now -- i.e. panes, toolbars, etc.)
We think it's intuitive, clean, and just as flexible as the current system.
You'll be able to make shortcuts to have one-click access to your favorite views.
ftp://ftp.jriver.com/pub/downloads/music/tmp/Concept.jpg
Let us know what you think. (keep in mind that it's still in the "white board" stage)
Thanks!
-
You Betcha,.. You Rock :o
nice idea ;)
-
Looks good. Am I reading it right that what was groupings in the tree now appears in the left combo box eg audio/images/video etc and what were view schemes appear in the right hand combo box??
Adam
-
How about that for getting users involved in product development? Heres my first impression:
It does look more 'unified' and seems to move away from the potentially confusing mix of controls and panes we have currently.
How do view schemes and play/smartlists fit in - just from the dropdowns or can we still save them in the tree/left pane or whatever its gonna be? The dropdowns do look interesting though.
Is that big space on the left supposed to be the 'handheld area' or something else?
-
Tree
It's scary, but we think we can go treeless with this change. Tabs have higher usability and free up space for the "Action Window"
Comboboxes
They're a sort of flat browsing -- just like the panes are a flat tree. (if that makes any senese) You pick what to look at with the first box and how to look at it with the second. This way, you look at playlists just like you look at your library.
Also, it'll remember the "how" part for each "what", so you won't have to change it too much.
Big space on the left (action window)
That's the action window. We want to make it just that -- action based. If you want to do something like burn a CD or build a playlist you'll start there. The "My Library" helps you find / explore content and the action window lets you use it.
-
I like the possibilities, BUT, there has to be a tree, doesn't there? That is a bit scary.
And what's the possibility of having each "area" draggable to be able to customize the layout? Maybe I want the panes on the bottom, the files on the left and the tab views on top.
-
You have my vote Matt, it looks great, very great indeed :D
-
- I like the 'Idea' in that I think seperating each tree area into big clear obvious sections is a good one - Seperate browsing our files etc from watching TV in a clear, disguishable way., etc with GUI's designed for each task representative of what we're doing.
Right now - too much is put into the tree - TV Tuner icon is the same size and importance as one of 100 playlists, or view schemes - I think it's important to bring these area's and feature more into the open.
- Also - seperating the GUI for media types is great in that when I'm browsing images - I want a BIG 'action window' to give me large thumbnails to view but I only want it smaller when doing audio.
- I dont however like the looks of the 'By:' section - it basically in effect destroys grouping again.
I LOVE where the tree is right now for the media library. Leave us with the tree for media library browsing.
U saw how big a comotion there was at removing the tree and just giving panes so you re-introduced the tree - now your preposing to totally get rid of it in all shapes and forms?
- What I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see is the 'playlists' and the 'Media Library' combined though.
Make playlists as default a group inside the media library - but then with the ability for us to move around each playlist whereever we want etc.
- whats happened to the properties pane?? To me tagging is one of the most important basic features and needs to be EXTREMELY easy.
- To me - the new layout also looks very 'Graphical' though and spacious which means less screen space that could be used for a LOT more important tasks and a VERY rigid design. Rather than having BIG buttons for 'Media Library, 'TV' etc - I'd rather just have a seperated properties and action window - split those into two windows and u'd make me 100 times happier than this big huge GUI change. Let us seperate out each screen in the 'action pane' like in dreamweaver for it's panels - or in photoshop for it's panes - let us build the GUI to match OUR needs and uses - this new GUI design would totally be a step away from that by the looks of it rather than towards it - it looks VERY much WMP like.
Your power is the fact your NOT like WMP - dont try copy their GUI or you'll be driving away all the customers who gave up that free jukebox because they didn't like it and instead chose yours.
- MC is for power users - end of story - light users wouldn't pay $40 for a jukebox when WMP is free. Let us build and customise the GUI like those other app's I mentioned and u'll be giving us more power to make it suit our needs instead of trying to develop a 'compromise for everyone' type GUI.
Anyway - this seems like a VERY big change and MUCH more like v10 stuff than stuff that should be done in v9.1.
Finish and polish v9.1 then go ahead with huge changes for v10
In my opinion these areas need to be finished and v9.1 would be done:
- Erase ALL major reproducable bugs so it's rock solid
- Sort out the properties window and grouping so we can make our own useful groups and easily chose what fields appear in each group (as someone suggested - maybe just do it in the exact same way as columns - right click>show field>blah)
- Sort out some way we can easily tag our files and use the properties window without it constantly requiring us to change and mess around with the action window (PLEASE just pull out the properties into a seperate pane!)
- Finish off the action pane
- Give us some kind of GUI way of dealing with list fields other than when in panes
Then just leave it out for a week - kill all bugs - pack it, ship it - do whatever u want for v10 as u'd have a solid stable stepping stone for those who dont like the big changes introduced in v10.
-
This looks like a far smarter way of building and selecting playlists.
Looks good all round.
Keyvan R
-
Tree
It's scary, but we think we can go treeless with this change. Tabs have higher usability and free up space for the "Action Window"
and what about Drag and drop we used to in the tree items !?
-
another thing is when using tabs instead of tree view.. the we would stuck in browsing media only with panes.. and that requeires a 100% non-resetable panes! ..
you know what i mean ;)
-
I do like the idea of being able to burn straight from an action window straight on the left while still browsing my library though. - I thought this is where the action pane was going now??
Also - web media could be mixed into the Media Library nicely in my opinion as a node just like playlists so they were all combined.
Break the tree down to:
- Playing Now
- Media Library
. - Current Media Library
. - Playlists mixed in
. - Web Media Mixed in
- My Computer
- CD, DVD, Handheld
- TV
- Plug-ins (if any installed)
U'd have killed two nodes - u could make all the other main nodes bigger and more prominent?
-
Yes!!!
I was hoping for this step.
A few considerations:
I tagged my 4000 files using MC tree. I dropped each song in a cateogry (artist, genre, ...) until the tree was clean and the songs tagged. I didnt tag anymore since then.
Now, I realize something similar can be made using panes. However, I feel (it is just a feeling), it is not so easy and obvious way as it was tagging over the tree.
My proposal is that schemes are panel-based or tree-based. Or even better, that each scheme could be seen as a panel or as a tree by just clicking in a button. So, once a scheme is selected, I can see the files in two ways:
-Panels in the top, and files in the bottom, or...
-Tree in the left, and files in the right
-
I do like the idea of being able to burn straight from an action window straight on the left while still browsing my library though. - I thought this is where the action pane was going now??
Also - web media could be mixed into the Media Library nicely in my opinion as a node just like playlists so they were all combined.
Break the tree down to:
- Playing Now
- Media Library
. - Current Media Library
. - Playlists mixed in
. - Web Media Mixed in
- My Computer
- CD, DVD, Handheld
- TV
- Plug-ins (if any installed)
U'd have killed two nodes - u could make all the other main nodes bigger and more prominent?
That makes sense, media is media, therefore should reside in the media library.
-
Heh, I and some others on this board have been for this for a while...
I have no problem with the tree disappearing IF there's no functionality loss as a result. One of the questions I've had in thinking through the use case for a design like this: what's the impact on browsing branches of great depth, as you might find in browsing My Computer? How is that navigation achieved?
Is there a possibility of more than one row of "tabs"? If so, I'll reiterate a suggestion from another thread: I don't think the buttons should be tabs since tabs can move up and down in multi-row display. It might be smarter to have button dropdowns with a primary selection area and a dropdown activation area.
It would be super-cool if one could drag items from the files area and drop them to the appropriate tab or tab sub-item. This would roughly match one of the greater strengths of the tree - having a great number of potential targets simultaneously.
-
I'm still taking this in. My brain's about as fast as my dial up connection! First impressions are:
Positives:
- Looks more intuitive - my wife will like it
- The action window won't need to resize and will be bigger
Not Sure about:
- Switching view schemes is an extra click away in the combo box. I know that's where favorites or shortcuts come in but I have lots of view schemes and no particular favorite. I think I could live with this though.
- I assume we lose view scheme groups. I would have real problems coping with this change. I won't list the reasons as they've all been argued before. That's why you brought them back.
- All the issues we've been discussing in relation to the AW still apply i.e. let's not have it constantly changing view without asking and let's have a quick way to select the view we want.
Overall: Looks good but I agree with Nila. I'm ready for a break now and was kinda hoping that 9.1 would be done and dusted with all major bugs eliminated. I could do with a breather before v10. As long as it's not finished I'll just have to keep on the beta path - I don't feel like I have much choice. So if it were me I'd stick to your previous comment and 'finish up on 9.1'.
-
Looks like everyone is (almost) all for it. Me too...
Does it mean we get it in a new build tonight? ;D
-
This looks great! Removes a TON of complexity.
I was just playing around a few minutes ago and realized that I'm getting tired of choosing to start in either the library OR the playlists. This is a great solution to that problem.
This also picks up the tabs that have been mentioned a few times and takes it a few steps farther. You JRiver guys are pretty smart.
I'm so sold on the idea, I'll be disappoined if you DON'T do it. I realize that this is a big change and probably a ways off, bit it is a great goal to work towards.
I'm not sure how the panes (which I love) will fit in, but I'm sure you smarties will figure out something great.
-
Truly, the tree is what sets MC apart from the others, as well as making it a much faster and intuitive db vs the competition.
As a long time MS explorer user (and there are many many out there) the chopping of the tree is highly questionable indeed.
Save the Tree, Save the Tree!
-
I think the tree view is the best way to browse and drill down into a hierarchical structure. It works for the file system and in my opinion, works for media.
I didn't like the MC 9.1 changes until I found a way to hide most of the list panes and populate the tree with artist/album etc.
I think doing away with the tree is a big mistake. I loved MC 9.0-- thought it was the best there was. If the tree goes, I'm going to stick with what we have now or look for something else.
Jonathan
-
Looks very interesting. Maybe knickelfarz can knock up a realistic looking mock up for us to comment on.
-
I think this could work but I'm not sure how intuitive it would be. I scanned through the other posts but didn't read deep so if I repeat something, sorry:
Questions:
1. If I change something in Combo Box A, does it automatically populate Combo Box B *AND* the panes below?
2. I currently put playlists inside of playlists for organization. How would this be handled by in the Combo Boxes?
3. If I select a playlist, what does Combo Box B do? Would it allow me to view the playlist by different categories as it currently shows? Can I set a default category for a playlist?
4. If you're going to enact such a huge change on the GUI, why not go ahead and do what just about every MC user wants and add that window-wide properties window with the tabs in it (http://www.futurehome.de/mc/split_view.htm). Seems like it would be even better to somehow combine the multi-tabbed properties pane approach with the files area...
A quick example of what I'm talking about: http://www.misrule.org/linked/jrmc-idea.jpg
Maybe another tab for "default" or whatever that would show the files area like we're used to seeing it with the tabs above the sortable column headers. The properties area could be shown or hidden by an arrow button (as shown to the right of the artist field).
!shrug! Just a thought.
-
I really think that 9.1 is nearly there now and there is no need for such a big change as this. All that's really needed now is to fine tune the action window. SlikVik's suggestion for an IE style solution (like search, history, favorites etc) would go a long way to achieveing this as it would:
- Be more intuitive for new users
- Let us access the panel we need in one click
- Allow us to manually resize
- Remember settings (like size) for each panel
- Provide context sensitive tools where we need them removing the need for a massive right click menu.
I would urge you to give this a try and finish off 9.1 and then experiment with the radical stuff.
-
I am just amazed at how quickly some here can figure things out, plusses and minuses. For now I have no opinion, I can't even picture how I'd use this from the whiteboard drawing. It's either so simple I can't see it or so complex nobody would ever figure it out. Anyway no opinion, other than:
1. Please shelve this idea until the current 9.1 is finished.
2. Can you give some consideration to either eliminating the Action Window from 9.1 (since the last build before the Action Window worked real well for me and the way I use MC), or keeping it, but making it totally transparent to those who want to click the toolbar properties button and get the properties window?
-
I am just amazed at how quickly some here can figure things out, plusses and minuses. For now I have no opinion
same here
-
Hmmm... On the surface, I think it looks really good. You still get the media grouping (in the View: combobox), and you still get all the different view schemes (in the By: combobox).
The antiquated tree goes away (yay!) and panes take over.
But I think there is a point about multiple layers of nesting. How would this interface handle that? Currently MC populates lists of that nature as Layer 1\Layer 2\Layer 3\List and I really don't like that. A cascading menu keeps things organized better. But how do you do that with a combobox?
Personally, for me, that wouldn't be too big of a problem. I don't nest things too much. But even one layer is problematic. Solve that, and I think you've got a real winner of an interface on your hands. Very clean... I like. :)
-
This looks great - and radical. Removing the tree will keep things more consistent.
But to be even more radical - remove drop down boxes and make it all by panes, after all each pane could be a drop down box.
The first pane represents first options under the old tree (playing now, media library, cd etc). This needs to be user defined (delete options not applicable to your system). Second pain represents the second options under the tree depending on what was selected in the first option (media library selected -second pane shows audio, images, video etc) And so on..
If too many panes appear, the pane to the left would disappear but a simultaneous description of what has been selected would appear so the user is not left in the dark. Number of panes could be defined by the user and width also adjustable.
Arrow to navigate between which panes appear also.
The panes would take up all the width of the screen leaving the action box across the bottom - this needs the entire width for properties atleast. Yes the split view with tabs every one seems to like.
Neat and one means of navigation - panes.
-
I don't know the relative complexity of retaining the tree if this idea is implemented, but IMO it should stay in. Lots of folks use the tree and there are some good arguments for retaining it.
Another factor is psychological: when the tree disappeared for a brief while, it was harder for me to get used to the panes. It felt like an unfamiliar interface scheme was being "enforced". But now I don't use the tree as much after having the opportunity to compare its function to the panes.
Some folks will undoubtedly always want the tree. I'm not arguing against that - I like having more than one way to do something, as long as it's not intrusive or confusing.
-
Also - web media could be mixed into the Media Library nicely in my opinion as a node just like playlists so they were all combined.
Break the tree down to:
- Playing Now
- Media Library
. - Current Media Library
. - Playlists mixed in
. - Web Media Mixed in
- My Computer
- CD, DVD, Handheld
- TV
- Plug-ins (if any installed)
U'd have killed two nodes - u could make all the other main nodes bigger and more prominent?
just a minor addition: TV is just media as well. Make each channel a (virtual) media file and just handle it as any other media file.
No need for a sepperate TV root node. All configuration options would go where they belong: Tools->Options->TV
The more revolutionairy approach would be to drop all root nodes and add a drop down box or a small toolbar on the top of the tree pane holding
- Playing Now
- Media Library
- My Computer
- CD, DVD, Handheld
- Plug-ins (if any installed)
maybe even remove CD/... and plugins. make them availabel via action window buttons.
Ingo
p.s.: please keep the tree....
-
Matt,
one of the biggest strengths of MC is its ability to help organizing files on the harddisk, prepare everything for tagging and finaly tag everything...
This includes moving files around a lot. And this is where the tree view comes verry handy. It uses the same approach we are used from windows' explorer and works very well.
Loosing the tree view would make MC a media database only product (at least for me). Probably still the best of it's kind, but no longer as versatile as it is now.
So, please, keep the tree.
Ingo
p.s.: did I mention that I'd really miss that tree....
-
I like this concept a lot (I mean a lot) and am verrrrry excited to see it implemented.
Tree out, tabs in. Woot!
-
I'll be honest, the only time I use the tree currently is to open media library and select a view scheme. Everything else I do is done using the panes or the action window. All my tagging i done in the panes for both list type fields and normal fields. I love playing now showing in the action window and media library in the panes...fantastic for when I am DJing. This new interface to me cleans evrything up, focuses the work to specific areas and makes the work flow a lot clearer. I see nothing I can do with the tree that I cannot do without it. If anyone can show me I will be happy to accept it but I certainly would not miss the tree if it went.
Adam
-
Sorry to say, I really wouldn't miss the tree. As pointed out by NoCodeUK, I also only use the tree to get to my schemes.
Trees are useful in Explorer because of large lists of folders, but in MC it's only extra precision clicks. Hooray for a new navigation system!
-
just a minor addition: TV is just media as well. Make each channel a (virtual) media file and just handle it as any other media file.
No need for a sepperate TV root node. All configuration options would go where they belong: Tools->Options->TV
The more revolutionairy approach would be to drop all root nodes and add a drop down box or a small toolbar on the top of the tree pane holding
- Playing Now
- Media Library
- My Computer
- CD, DVD, Handheld
- Plug-ins (if any installed)
maybe even remove CD/... and plugins. make them availabel via action window buttons.
Ingo
p.s.: please keep the tree....
I was thinking that too - it'd be great as you could group the channels:
- Music Channels
. - MTV
. - VH1
. - Rhythm and Soul
etc
- Film Channels
. - blah
. - blah
. - blah
It would work great.
Only thing is though - TV is a pretty important feature - MC needs to make sure that new users are aware of it and it is easy to get to.
-
I really don't understand all this excitement about a new interface and all this radical changes, I believe more in evolution than revolution, slow improvements over fast, radical changes. Even Microsoft is very cautious about revolutionary changes and prefers small amounts of improvements, so that users can digest it.
Personally I found the MC interface always a workable interface, 80% of the work could be done most efficiently. Of course, one always looks for improvements, but those need to be on essential things and not on cosmetics.
Here in Europe and especially in Architecture we say: Form follows function and not the other way round. First get a clear picture about the functionality, then very often the form (=UI) will become evident on its own. I also thought that the days of GUI experimenting were gone long ago, although I acknowledge that tag management and display is quite a new thing that even Microsoft does not know how to handle properly. As you may have noted, Windows Explorer displays tags, but there is no way to properly manage them.
And it might be wise to take the advice from Cnet about "back to the drawing board" very seriously, but not so much about UI, but functionality. First ask yourself what should the basic functionality of an all-in-one Media Center be, then built it around those requirements. MC9.0 was really a good start for such a program, but there were many features half-finished and this forum clearly spotted them out.
If you move to a high-range software, quality and flawless implementation is of paramount importance. In the future the implementation of a truly media based relational database could be the bigger winner, than interface cosmetics. Once people see the benefit of having all media in once place, they will be starting adding more and more content. Media Management was the original strength of Media Jukebox and I feel this should remain the top priority for improvement. The second is flawless support for a large variety of media devices.
Just take a look at the evolution of Office. In the early days they endlessly added feature after feature, only later on (maybe with 2000 or XP) they really started polishing the interface.
I also feel that this recent zig-zagging course is severely discouraging 3rd party implentations. Or do you remember the last time that Mouseman produced one of his great track info sheets? What about tools such as NetRemote, Glissando etc. If their is not a certain straight evolution, all those people get simply discouraged.
There was less controversy and much more enthusiasm during MC9 development than I can feel now on the board. Hard-core users may ask themselves where is J River heading and may become cautious of investing all their time in a program that does not seem to have a clear outlook.
Well, I know that J River is good for big surprises and I hope that they will prove the futility of my arguments. But don't say one day you have not been warned!
-
Jaguu,
This is just a proposal. It may or may not happen.
Also, you're viewing the development process, during which we ask ourselves a lot of questions.
It was my suggestion that Matt post a message asking for feedback. I thought it would be controversial.
Perhaps we're opening up our dev process too much.
Jim
-
Even Microsoft is very cautious about revolutionary changes and prefers small amounts of improvements, so that users can digest it.
You mean like the change from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95?
Here in Europe and especially in Architecture we say: Form follows function and not the other way round. First get a clear picture about the functionality, then very often the form (=UI) will become evident on its own.
I think in this case, people are getting too hung up on what they're used to having, and not thinking too much about the function. A typical music player interface doesn't work well for all of the types of media that MC handles. This has been pointed out several times. But try and change it, and you're faced with resistance. Why? Trees work well for files. They work reasonably well for music. They don't handle pictures well. So why cling to it when something better could be made?
And it might be wise to take the advice from Cnet about "back to the drawing board" very seriously, but not so much about UI, but functionality.
I think MC's had enough functionality crammed into it over the years without the interface changing much. It's time they worked on the interface. All the functionality in the world isn't going to sell a product if new users hate the interface or can't figure out how to get anything done. The stuff they're trying now is confusing at times, but it's a work in progress. They're trying something new. Obviously it's not going to be perfect right out of the door. Why not try and help them make it better, rather than flat out rejection?
Just take a look at the evolution of Office. In the early days they endlessly added feature after feature, only later on (maybe with 2000 or XP) they really started polishing the interface.
MC is at version 9. At what point exactly do you suggest they start working on the interface?
I also feel that this recent zig-zagging course is severely discouraging 3rd party implentations. Or do you remember the last time that Mouseman produced one of his great track info sheets?
Must be by his choice since nothing has changed in the TrackInfo implemenation.
What about tools such as NetRemote, Glissando etc. If their is not a certain straight evolution, all those people get simply discouraged.
Hasn't stopped KingSparta from developing his plugins. I see no reason the interface changes should stop anybody from development except maybe the skinners. And from what I've seen so far, they seem perfectly content to roll with the changes and keep on skinning.
There was less controversy and much more enthusiasm during MC9 development than I can feel now on the board. Hard-core users may ask themselves where is J River heading and may become cautious of investing all their time in a program that does not seem to have a clear outlook.
I know you're going to hate this, but... nobody says you have to upgrade. Don't buy it and then decide if you like it. Evaluate it first, then decide. JRiver's decisions may drive some existing customers away. That's a risk all companies take with any change to the product. But they may also attract millions more. Who's to say? You feel very strongly about it because you're an existing user who obviously liked what we had. There may be many more who like what we will have. Only time will tell.
I just wonder what some of us would think of 9.1 if we were coming into it for the first time, without being "tainted" by prior experience. I actually remember trying MJ6 back in the day and hating it. Then I tried it again at 7 and have been around ever since. Who knows... I may get off this train at 10. As a consumer I have no loyalties to this product beyond my own greedy needs (the community is a different story!). If the product fails to impress and somebody else's wins me over...
-
Who knows... I may get off this train at 10. As a consumer I have no loyalties to this product beyond my own greedy needs (the community is a different story!). If the product fails to impress and somebody else's wins me over...
Oh, Doof. Oh, the pain. Say it isn't so, Doof. :P
-
The functionality is all there already your right doof and I agree with this.
It needs to be brought more to the surface and made easier to use which is why this GUI change is pre-posed.
One area that was already introduced however to deal with bringing the power to the surface is the 'Location Bar'.
Unless I'm mistaken the 'Location Bar' is in effect - a tools toolbar.
If this is the correct use of it then it could be used to make each area more relivant to it's media type etc by giving it more power and more functions/buttons aka tools
If it could be customised per spot in the library then it could be set up seperately for: Images/Audio/Video depending on the users needs.
MC could create as default - the three groups in the media library for each type and then set up the location bar to provide tools to deal with this media type.
Some people create view schemes for tagging for instance - allowing the tagging tools (currently found in 'library tools') to appear on the toolbar here would be customising it and making it a lot faster and easier to deal with the tagging.
View schemes for playback - if we could add buttons for: Play, Add to playing now, Add to playing now (play next), etc to the location toolbar here it would make this area customised to it's function
Image schemes already can have tools for: Rotate, flip, resize, etc available for them.
Your right about having MC more customised to suit the task and the seperate media types but this can be achieved with the flexibility that the current GUI provides without having to move to a rigid fixed design. The location toolbar already is there and could easily allow a great deal of GUI (tools) functionality to be varied depending on Media Type and what each view scheme is set up for. All that would take is for it to be developed a tiny bit more.
-
A typical music player interface doesn't work well for all of the types of media that MC handles. This has been pointed out several times. But try and change it, and you're faced with resistance. Why? Trees work well for files. They work reasonably well for music. They don't handle pictures well. So why cling to it when something better could be made?
I think this might be the crux of the disagreement. I think there are two groups of MC users. Those of us who see MC primarily as a music manager and don't use it to organize any other types of media, so we don't see the limitations of the current interface. The other group, of course, are those who have embraced the full multimedia capabilities and want to see MC develop further in that area.
Personally, I would prefer if MC was only a music manager/player/and maybe burner (which was the reason I started using it in the first place) and concentrated on developing that aspect to it's fullest. For example, I would rather developement time be spent on making MC's burning engine solid and as full featured as standalone software like Nero or Feurio, rather than having the ability to organize images. My worry is that MC is going to end up only being good at a lot of different things and not excellent at any of them.
Rob
-
I use it for all media types - Images and Video's too and for me it works fine how it is.
It's not perfect for an Image Browser but I wouldn't consider it to be one - I have ACDSee for that and it's perfect for that.
For me MC is about managing my images - I FIND the images I want then display them via slide show - I dont browse to images like I do with ACDSee - it's two seperate uses.
On the same note though as your point about development time being spent - just wondering - if everyone here had the choice - would you rather the time put into this new GUI or would you rather previously requested items like: Advanced video playback controls (speed etc) be implemented.
It's a case of A OR B - they're only capable of doing one thing at a time - they cant do both.
-
from Jaguu:
Here in Europe and especially in Architecture we say: Form follows function and not the other way round.
Hehe, but it was Americans who came up with that phrase. Louis Sullivan first, later refined by Frank Lloyd Wright :)
The problem with this quote as a model for software development is that you don't always have a base reference for function. In architecture and industrial design you have ergonomics as a solid reference. But there's not a sole reference for the display, navigation, and manipulation of data. We have some archival models, such as the tree, but it can't be objectively stated that there's a single best solution or even that software should adhere to previous models. "Evolutionary" adherence to prior models is frequently a business case more than a logical development model.
Just take a look at the evolution of Office. In the early days they endlessly added feature after feature, only later on (maybe with 2000 or XP) they really started polishing the interface.
I hope I'm mistaken, but are you pointing to MS Office as a good development model? A large part of the history of Office development has been the incessant pouring of features into an ill-fitting shell, with little regard for stability or usability, primarily for the sake of selling corporate licenses for new versions. Only after years of complaints did MS ramp up their usability testing and try to ameliorate the mess that they had created.
If you move to a high-range software, quality and flawless implementation is of paramount importance. In the future the implementation of a truly media based relational database could be the bigger winner, than interface cosmetics.
I can't think of an example of the above where interface is not a principal concern. Interfaces are not "cosmetics", they are the means for interacting with information and data. I don't disagree with you about the DB aspect, but you have to have a robust way to interact with the data. That would be the interface. Skins are cosmetics, literally.
As I stated before, I am not for the removal of the tree in any tests of a new browsing system. But the hard fact is that the tree is not fulfilling for all people the ostensible goals of MC - to make a wide range of media and devices smoothly accessible.
I don't think there will ever be an interface with which all folks are happy. I would second other people thoughts about "rounding off" 9.1, but I don't think it's necessarily realistic with limited development resources - look at 9.0. I don't have a problem with this personally, but I understand those who do. As to C-Net's "back to the drawing board" comment, I think that was a little broad. There are surely functional improvements to be made, just as there are interface improvements to be made.
The thing that I'm trying to keep in mind is just how much a single app is being asked to do - it's a perverse amount of work. Trying to keep it accessible in the face of increasing complexity is a monumental but very worthy task, IMO.
-
Very nicely said, phelt. Thanks.
-
This discussion keeps getting more interesting. I usually agree with Nila on all points, but on this one, I'm 100% behind Doof. The user interface is important. I'd pay money to upgrade (or switch) to software that is easier to use. And the panes work well for me.
I'm also impressed with how open JRiver has been with the development process. Posting conceptual drawings is on another level.
I like the new picture. It's cleaner and looks like it could be easier to use. I'm waiting to see what the Action Window will look like. And I think the dropdown menu might be too difficult to use with more than a couple view schemes.
I took a crack at drawing another way of using tabs. I think it could free up some space.
http://www.samuelkim.com/Public/linked%20data/jriver1.gif
There are four sections:
Player, Tabs, Library, Lower Panel. Each can be hidden or collapsed.
I left blank the audio library section (panes, trees, view scheme groups, etc.), which seems to be the most controversial.
The lower panel is basically Knickelfarz's model, which I thought was excellent. I think it might do the "Action Window" thing quite well.
Playing Now or Playlists can remain on screen with the library which would allow more intuitive list making. You could drag and drop songs into the playlists directly.
Using tabs on top frees up the middle space. With view schemes, playlists., etc. out of the way, you have some more space and flexibility for the audio library. You might fit two or three panes on the left, which allows a longer list of songs on the right.
It also allows separate ui for audio, video, etc.
So the video section won't need the same action window or even the same player.
Being able to hide the player panel also gives you more space.
-
Sam, kinda funny that you agree with me on most posts (thanks!) because I agree with you too - your mock up seems more appealing.
The tabs across the top leave a LOT more flexibility for adding new tabs - plugins for instance could get a tab each (totally remove any tree like nature to them) - Portables could be seperated from CD Rom drives which could be brought more to the surface (I found it VERY confusing to find how to see where the files I was about to burn were the first time I tried in MC).
Also - the lack of any panes/trees/tabs or whatever on the left means that we have the FULL screen width to do stuff in - this would mean for instance that for audio -there could still easily be a tree there if wanted (maybe this is the time to consider a 'basic' and an 'advanced' mode that MC could be toggled between - tree Vs. a couple of drop down list boxes?
For the CD tab on the left we could have options to do with the burning, with ripping, etc. etc.
Each tab could have whatever it wanted on the left which would REALLY leave it open to flexibility and power.
To have horizontal tabs means that we only have to add an extra line one font size heigh (plus GUI visuals) - taking up almost NO screen space - ones on the side however take up the full width of the word:
---------------- this much space used all the way across the left
Media Library
Media Libary | or this much used along the top - this one strikes me as wasting far less space thereby leaving a lot more space for more useful features/tools/etc.
-
Perhaps we're opening up our dev process too much.
Jim
This is unusual, but the dedication from the MJ\MC lovers is a bit unusual as well. Personally, I applaud you for it. You knew it would bring trouble, but you also know of the dedication here and wether it be good or bad, you knew you'd hear what your users think. That's unusual, and given the choice, most if not all here would agree to have the option to voice their opinion, I'm sure.
And if you guys never tried any new ideas, we'd still be looking at MC6? Yea, keep strategizing, keep creating and go ahead, maybe you do reinvent the wheel.
-
I second WarrenPace's comments. I like the fact that you continue to challenge original assumptions and innovate.
You manage this forum and the interaction with this portion of your user base better than any consumer software team I've seen.
-
Amen,
Love it or hate it, it's still great to be able to give feedback this early on. It also gives a chance to get ideas from the users as to alternatives or just maybe one person will say something that give you an idea of something to try.
I think it's a great way of brainstorming ideas.
-
Not sure if you guys have used iTunes - but from what I can remember - it doesn't have a screen for 'Burning' - it just has a 'Burn CD' button permenantly on screen.
You can press it when viewing any playlist, list of files, whatever etc is displayed on screen to just burn whatever you are looking at - it's quite a clever way of doing burning.
Makes it very easy to quickly burn anything.
Just an idea while your considering big changes :)
Hope ur all having a great weekend xx
-
You can press it when viewing any playlist, list of files, whatever etc is displayed on screen to just burn whatever you are looking at - it's quite a clever way of doing burning.
Makes it very easy to quickly burn anything.
But can you get to the more advanced functions? File arrangement, DSP options, etc.? This is a real plus with MC now. Just the method of getting there that is a little awkward and could use some brushing up. I wouldn't go for something that just starts an auto-burn without first having a good look at what I'm about to do.
-
No - it works in the same way as Nero.
When you click on 'Burn' - it pop's up a dialog box with all the burn options - you then set what options u want here and it uses them for the burn.
Obviously also still have a seperate burning screen with full power designed around burning - but I just thought this might be a clever 'extra' to include to attrack customers
sales pitch:
'Burn any playlist, anywhere - MC v9"
or:
"Like the songs infront of you - burn them onto a CD with one easy click - MC 9"
lol - that type of thing :)
-
As one of those odd users who is just waiting for hairstyle improvements, may I ask how these mini-revolutions will affect those of us who spend 90% of our MC time operating it with a IR remote control? The tree allows for fairly famimliar navigation with a remote. How would one navigate tabs and dropdowns?
I'm not trying to say I don't like these new ideas, just that for me, and I think a few others, remote control issues are extremely important. I hope that you guys can keep us well served with all of these changes.
Thanks,
Stuart
P.S. Either of these two things would get me to upgrade from 9.0:
a) hairstyle upgrade
b) supported, functional implementation of directx host for audio playback
-
As one of those odd users who is just waiting for hairstyle improvements, may I ask how these mini-revolutions will affect those of us who spend 90% of our MC time operating it with a IR remote control? The tree allows for fairly famimliar navigation with a remote. How would one navigate tabs and dropdowns?
I'm not trying to say I don't like these new ideas, just that for me, and I think a few others, remote control issues are extremely important. I hope that you guys can keep us well served with all of these changes.
Thanks,
Stuart
P.S. Either of these two things would get me to upgrade from 9.0:
a) hairstyle upgrade
b) supported, functional implementation of directx host for audio playback
I agree. Please don't forget about IR control, it's a VERY important direction for a Media solution to move towards. It's still not right at the moment, but it's still fairly easy to move through a tree or tab through a pane.
Slikvik
-
PLEASE, PLEase, please do not take away the ability to have multiple panes each with their own column type, etc. This allows super flexible filtering without having to traverse thru multiple dropdowns/menus/etc which is cumbersome. You have my permission to add new functionality :) but please keep the ability to have the multiple panes, too.
-
Doof's argument is a very true and strong one.
Most of those who are for this new look and do not care about tree ,gave it the best judjement.
BUT ,again ,you can see people using at full possibilitys a Media CENTER ,and those having the pain to use a Media Center when they just would like a Media JUKEBOX.
Slowly this people may stop to use MC.
So ,again ,make an Media JUKEBOX 9 .
No need to change interface. Just put SmartList, the new burning fonctions,and everything concerning music.
Make it a finish product ,not ,again ,a beta.
Put it out at regular Jukebox price-
No free upgrade from MJ8 ,people with an MC key ,of cause can use it.
This one would got VERY GOOD revues , many people would buy it.
And ,at the same ,have MC saga going on with a TOTALY DIFFERENT kind of users/customers.
As i see it ,the only raisons some people use McC,even if they do not like it ,is because of MUSIC ONLY features not in MJ8.
The second raison is that people with more than 10-15 thousands songs are stuck with MC or MJ ,because there is not another jukebox who can deal with large number of songs.
I do think there is a market for a MJ9 brand- from JRiver or from another compagny-
-
This proposal won't be implemented in 9.1. We may revisit the idea in the future.
Thanks very much for all the feedback.
Closing this thread.