Post by: JimH on August 31, 2002, 03:51:26 pm
These are ones in which a simple switch in options could make the person happy. Here's an example from a thread today:
----------
[KingSparta is replying]
>>> I would like to be able to turn ON a feature to
>>> REMOVE SONGS FROM PLAYLIST WHEN PLAYED .
that might not be a bad option, this way if for some reason you need to stop the playlist you dont play the songs over again when you start playing.
---------------
This one would be easy for us to add, and at least one user would be happy, but (and this is our problem), it adds complexity for all.
The expert users are no problem. They will be able to navigate without too much frustration.
The intermediates and below are the problem. They will find the choices bewildering.
So...what should we do? Is it already complicated enough? Or should we please more users?
Post by: KingSparta on August 31, 2002, 04:04:43 pm
- Novice Mode
[Play] [Stop]
[X] Normal user Mode
[Play] [Stop] [Pause]
[X] Extreme User Mode (*All with an Attitude)
[Reverse*] [Play*] [Stop*] [Pause*] [Fast Forward*]
Post by: JimH on August 31, 2002, 04:06:44 pm
Post by: sekim on August 31, 2002, 04:14:02 pm
I'd like to see everything and then some. I guess in my case, the more I use MJ, the more comfortable I am with its advanced features. Like everything else, you have to learn how to use it. I'm still trying to figure out the can opener though...Good thing beer comes in a bottle, I just smack the S.O.B. on the counter and viola, open.
Listening to: 'Pain' from 'Shpritsz' by 'Herman Brood & His Wild Romance' on Media Jukebox
Listening to: 'Cure for Pain' from 'Cure for Pain' by 'Morphine' on Media Jukebox
Listening to: 'Pain' from 'Primitive' by 'Soulfly' on Media Jukebox
Post by: KingSparta on August 31, 2002, 04:16:57 pm
As long as your not talking about a Unix version, Yes
(I never liked Unix)
anyone else have some thoughts?
Post by: DocLotus on August 31, 2002, 04:20:07 pm
I like KingSparta's idea. This brings back memories of several programs that I have used through the years that had 2 or 3 modes for different users,
1: Novice (or beginner) mode.
2: Experienced user.
3: Advanced (or expert) user.
The program only had one overall set of commands (the master set, so to speak). Each level simply made more of the switches available. Most users ended up using the 'Experienced user' mode. Guys like us would turn on the 'Advanced' mode.
Post by: KingSparta on August 31, 2002, 04:21:50 pm
with a rocket straped to it.
Post by: dloneranger on August 31, 2002, 04:25:53 pm
the beginner/normal/advanced option sounds good to me
sigh, if only windows had the same option
Post by: DocLotus on August 31, 2002, 04:33:27 pm
A: The new user does not get turned off by an overly complex set of switches as they start out in ‘Beginner’ mode.
B: As they gain experience they discover the ‘Experienced’ mode which gives them more choices.
C: When they think the program has run out of steam, they discover the ‘Advanced’ mode.
D: As the user moves through the various modes, they are gaining valuable experience & each new mode is a kind of ‘reward’ which is a great morale booster as the user has a since of ‘I did that’.
E: All of the above makes for a very faithful MJ user who will pass the ‘gospel’ around about the benefits of MJ.
Post by: phelt on August 31, 2002, 04:44:19 pm
People who want a ton of advanced features are the kind of people who will drill down to get to them. In a perfect world there might be more feature transparency. But in the real world, regular users get overwhelmed quickly and presets should be designed for them. Hackers will find the tools to achieve their results. Then, after answering a newbie question or 3, they will post requests for yet more obscure functions
Post by: KingSparta on August 31, 2002, 04:53:23 pm
"Not Your Little Sisters Jukebox"
Post by: Dave T on August 31, 2002, 05:28:59 pm
- Dave
Post by: JimH on August 31, 2002, 05:33:06 pm
The more complex and poweful we make it, the smaller our market niche will be. Programmers, technology freaks, union carpenters, etc.
This means we will have to move into a different (higher) price bracket. $40-$60, for example.
Still a good idea?
Post by: kthlnstz on August 31, 2002, 05:33:23 pm
Putting aside my not knowing what I'm doing, I do really like MJ and have passes the word on to various people. Thanks for all you're doing and listening to suggestions.
Post by: phelt on August 31, 2002, 06:05:54 pm
In my case, the spirit of my response was: make it simple and shiny for the folks who just want to use it, with the presets and defaults created for them. Minimal control surfaces and options visible in most common processes. Beyond (underneath?) that, let your freak flag fly with deep menus, customization, and options for those motivated enough to learn, test, and Interact. I'm talking about getting away from a binary ease/functionality choice.
As to the price, it works both ways. Raising the price significantly will keep away many newbies. I think the geeks here understand what a bargain MJ is currently. I know I do. But it would become harder to recommend to people.
Post by: Chico on August 31, 2002, 06:12:19 pm
I also understand about the novice being overwhelmed. Rather than having a very complexed, $40-$60 program, what about the idea of two seperate programs?
A MediaJukebox-Lite, would offer a novice a taste of what a full blown MJ could do, and still have a lot of the features that make MJ what it is today... A very powerfull media management tool. They can play, rip, and organize their music, but wouldn't get into the more complexed features.
You could charge say, $10-$15 for the Lite version, then, if someone wanted to get bold and move up with the big boys, they could pay another $15-$20 and get the monster app! Those that want to jump right in there with the big fishies, would just pay $30 or so for Media Jukebox-Full.
Post by: sekim on August 31, 2002, 06:15:44 pm
Post by: joe|PLS|mama on August 31, 2002, 06:19:47 pm
I like KingSparta's idea. This brings back memories of several programs that I have used through the years that had 2 or 3 modes for different users,
1: Novice (or beginner) mode.
2: Experienced user.
3: Advanced (or expert) user.
The program only had one overall set of commands (the master set, so to speak). Each level simply made more of the switches available. Most users ended up using the 'Experienced user' mode. Guys like us would turn on the 'Advanced' mode.
I like this idea also. 1st Page 2000 is a free HTML editor that does this pretty well.
When I first started using MJ, I left everything set pretty much the way it was installed, and had no intentions of changing them. Now, as the weeks have gone by I've begun to realize the potential options MJ offers and have been coming up with more and more ideas on how to use and customize them.
Other options might be to offer a "Lite" version and and "Expert" version at different price points. Or offer custom installation which lets users install/unistall certain "Advanced" options as they want. Or maybe create a few streaming or downloadable tutorials that would help explain some of the more advanced features to new users. I found this type of thing extremely helpful when I first started using Cool Edit.
Rob
Post by: Mr.X on August 31, 2002, 06:26:02 pm
Then all the capabilities would be there for the advanced people to use, but the options would be pre-set from the wizards for the beginners.
Post by: DocLotus on August 31, 2002, 06:37:38 pm
>>Still a good idea?>>
Yes, still a good idea.
>>The more complex and powerful we make it, the smaller our market niche will be. Programmers, technology freaks, union carpenters, etc.<<
I think you miss the point Jim, make it complex… (underneath, with all the switches), but clean & simple out ‘of the box’. By providing an outwardly clean, easy to set up interface (Beginner), MJ will be more easily accepted by the new user. So I don’t see how this will limit sales, to the contrary, it should increase sales as new users will not be so intimidated.
In fact, MJ might have three main switches (&/or menu choices) for pre-set settings for ‘Beginner’, ‘Advanced’, & ‘Expert’ modes that will automatically pre-set all the switches for the three modes. Each mode will provide to the user more option choices until they get to ‘Expert’ which will make all switches available.
We ‘geeks’ will simply go directly to the ‘Expert’ mode.
As kthInstz commented, it needs to both powerful & simple at the same time so the new user is not overwhelmed.
Post by: Chico on August 31, 2002, 06:41:11 pm
Post by: sekim on August 31, 2002, 06:52:35 pm
What about using wizards to help the newbies? You could build wizards from customer feedback when they ask "how do i..."
Then all the capabilities would be there for the advanced people to use, but the options would be pre-set from the wizards for the beginners.
This idea is sound. Maybe from the install wizard the choices could be given.
Beginner.
Novice.
Insane User-andyouknowwhoyouareyouneedtospendlesstimewiththisprogramandgetagrip settings.
Post by: JimH on August 31, 2002, 06:55:20 pm
Powerful and simple are two ends of the spectrum. You can approximate powerful and still be simple or vice versa, but you can't do both.
> make it complex… (underneath, with all the switches), but clean & simple out ‘of the box’. By providing an outwardly clean, easy to set up interface (Beginner), MJ will be more easily accepted by the new user. So I don’t see how this will limit sales, to the contrary, it should increase sales as new users will not be so intimidated.
I know this sounds easy, but in support, we'll end up asking people what mode they're in, and then telling them they'll have to turn on another to make a change. We'll have to remember which options are available under which modes.
In the end, I think it's a choice we have to make and hope you like it.
Post by: JaredH on August 31, 2002, 07:09:22 pm
Post by: AlonsoN on August 31, 2002, 09:32:32 pm
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
and the profound but depressing:
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."
Some examples of simple/complex:
The mouse. Very simple, very powerful.
MS Word. Very complex, but can be used in a simple mode. EG most folks format documents with spaces, tabs and new lines rather than defining templates and styles.
MJ is complex, but not so much compared with the aggregate complexity of the 3-5 apps that it replaces, because the alternative is (for instance) learning to rip w/EAC, burn w/Nero, Tag w/Dr.Tag, label with ? play with ??.
I really don't think that adding a fat load of behavior options that users can look for and play with change the perceived complexity of the program for the newbie. Look at it this way, either folks like things as they come out of the box or they want to look and fiddle. By all means the defaults should make it behave most like everything else. But all other things (like price) being equal, the only reason why a user will pick MJ over ?? is because it offers something the other does not.
A dude that said that "I've had MJ for quite some time and feel like I'm out of my league." Ok. Maybe it would be good to spend some time understanding what about MJ makes folks feel overwhelmed. There may be insights to be had there. But the question is complex compared to what? To other audio applications or compared to putting a CD in a boom box and pressing play?
As for wizards. Uck. I've never met a wizard that I liked. They always seem to get in the way of understanding. Rather than knowing how something got done they always do a bunch of stuff and leave you in some weird place. Bad bad bad. Better spend the effort working on a UI that promotes understanding.
Goodnight Gracie.
Post by: roving cowboy on August 31, 2002, 10:13:20 pm
i have been a huge fan eversense version one. remember the box with the horns.? the first time i saw that was on the tv set when someone did the david letter man show. saying the tech was stolen so they had to block the non mentioned big company that stole from re pattening it. then they could release it. how long ago was that? well i seen this back in 1999 on the net. then went and grabed it. and been pushing it eversince. and the guy on the tv said that he had to wait a few more yrs for the stolen patten to run out. yep i got a good memory only i thought it was johnny rivers that made this not james river. sorry.
just a little 5 min. on the tv made me a fan. so any bells and whistles you add is just more icing on the cake. :D
only that 40 dollar thing?? :( i am not in need of a lot of bells and stuff but i like to play with them :D i have all versions of this backed up like any good little mjb fan. but i miss the eq that is not in this version i have on this computer. and it seems the line in is not on this one either. but this computer is not anything for work just listing to the tunes for this computer so the free one for here is fine.
I know you need to make money. i just like to get things for free like everyone else does.
if you add in the different levels like they did in the first page 2000 program which i also went straight for the advanced level.
that is the best idea so far.
but make the advanced level the part you get when you buy it.
and the beginner one the demo.
and the expert users the free one.
that sounds best on my end. that way i wont lose anything i use and if i want the advanced i would have to brakedown and buy it then. :D
just dont take away my visualsation studio :D
roving cowboy
Post by: zevele1 on September 01, 2002, 01:31:17 am
There is a lot of things in Media Jukebox i do not know how to use because ,for a start i do not know enought about 'the thing' that MJ works about.
I mean i am just lost with tags,still do not understand really the matter.So i am lost with MJ fonctions about tags.
Do not know if 3 levels are needed.I use GetRight who has 2 wizards[?] or 2 modes[?],2 levels
The first one is for mister average,easy to set and the program works fine.The second one 'advanced' has A LOT of options.After some times i used the 'advanced',but there is still a lot i do not use and do not understand.
I know a download manager and a jukebox are not the same.But the main thing is that in 'average' level,you set throught a wizard,you do not have to mess around inside the interface.Impossible with a jukebox,you DO HAVE to work inside the interface.
Concerning price
Today,i understand a large part of Media Jukebox fonctions and 'with some little fonctions more[name of artist\song when MJ in the toolbars,play a sound when ripping finish...] i would pay more for MJ,up to $50.
But last summer,when i had problems with RealJukebox and Windows format and had a look around,I WOULD NOT HAD PAY $50 for Media Jukebox.
Media Jukebox played my WMA and i was able to play cds with mp3 on it.
To me was the good thing.I had a look at this place and just felt that such a spirit deserve my money.
I sent $25 after few days of trial period.As i say $25,i would have not send $50.
I did not understand all the MJ fonctions,for a part i even did not know there are this fonction and this one and so on.And ,after 30 days of use,i was still not aware of all the MJ power
If you opt for a 'shinning diamond' at $ 50-60,you may need to give more fonctions in the free version to get people realise the full power of MJ and upgrade.
I do know about the free fonctions,but you may need 'to give more' in the fields where you have 'unique' like tags and organisation.
Last,at $50-60 i'am not sure if i will upgrade at each new version who are out so fast
Post by: Nila on September 01, 2002, 02:29:26 am
This thread is VERY interesting and is nice to see such important options discussed so openly with all of us and to see you wanting the users choice as to the direction of the company.
I think the real key here to some extent like people have said: a basic user and an advanced users mode. EAC has it and it works well for them.
Also, I dont think you should try to make it just purely advanced and for a niche market. It makes less money for you guys and means the whole world wont be converted and if we can convert the whole world then you can start introducing your own standards etc and make the whole world just accept them like they do when IE introduces it's own propriatry tags etc.
I think the real key though to giving all these features is in how it's all laid out. Right now all the options are in one big box for instance with just different options on the left that give more options on the right. This way will get HUGELY complex if more and more features are added. Possibly even just doing something as simple as having a tab at the top of this box that says: basic/advanced as the two tab options, clicking on the advanced tab will show far more options, clicking the basic will just show ones that the average basic user might want. By making the switch between basic and advanced so blantent and obvious and not yet another option hidden in amoungst the rest you are likely to avoid the problems you were talking about whereby users cant find an option because they're in basic mode. MOST (obviously there are a few people with absolutely no brains) people will look for their option, if they cant find it they'll click the advanced tab and then look for the option there.
It'd make changing between modes sooo simple that all the beginers will click the tab at the beginning to see what it's about - if they find it too complex they'll switch back until they're more competant and then switch back to advanced. The more power users will switch to the advanced, love what they see and just leave it in there.
Another VERY good suggestion that was made was the Wizards.
A few well set up wizards would make the whole configuration for the basic user no problem. Album View now has one and it takes all the guess work and advanced power understanding out of the program.
You could even have a menu option, maybe next to Edit or tools that was called: Configuration or Wizards - and have all the wizards in there along with the options. Trying to make the wording and layout as simple and self explanatory as possible for beginners I feel would make a LOT of difference.
Also, for the wizards: a few I would STRONGLY recommend, even just now without adding more options - that would help beginners set up MJ just how they like it (and therefore get you alot more happy customers and therefore more $$$) would be to show these wizards as soon as MJ was ran for the first time ever:
1. Instantly ask them if they want to customise the toolbar, and change the toolbar so that it has a ? next to the X in the corner that explains EACH toolbar option with a little tool tip.
2. give a wizard that sets up the 'general' options for the user as well as the Startup settings, playback.
3. another wizard that helps them order the columns in the order they want and lets them turn them on or off. It should also help them set up sorting order for MJ, a default for which I would suggest (please disagree anyone if this isn't what you use) should be: artist/year/album/track # - all ascending.
4. Burning and ripping/encoding then should be done through a wizard along with an option at the very beginning asking them if they wish to configure burning or ripping/encoding or both.
5. Media Library should then also have a wizard to create view scheme's for them as some basic users might not understand what this is about.
6. Possibly one also to show them the features of smartlists and what they can do and to help them set them up.
Tip's of the Day can also be used to give the user alot of information.
Things like the: File naming and location, encoding and device settings could all for instance be put under one screen called: Ripping as they are all directly connected to this activity.
Having thousands of options isn't a problem, setting them all up so as not to confuse the user is the problem. Take MS word for instance. This program has TONS of powerful features and can do all kinds of things. Most users however only use it for standard letter writing type tasks without every touching things like mail merge, macro's etc.
It has all the options and power but it's just laid out well. That's what MJ's mission I think is.
And as for putting up the price, I think you'd be scaring off alot of users which would have a negative effect on your profits. I think either keep it the same and use suggestions from this thread on how to keep beginners happy or else maybe as someone else suggested have a double pricing scheme - standard/advanced. It'd be the same as the way you've disabled some options now when the trial period is over.
I really think the secret is not so much in the number of options you have, but in how these are presented to the user and how they are laid out and mixed. There is no such thing as too many options, just a thing called too confusing. That's what you have to overcome.
One possible solution might be to try a few different layouts for the options screen and just get everyone on here to test the different layouts and see which one they find the easiest etc.
Wizards are definitely the easiest way however to get beginners to comfortable set up a lot of different options to make MJ run how they want it to.
Post by: Jaguu on September 01, 2002, 03:15:23 am
In earlier days I also thought about this novice vs. advanced levels for user interfaces, but nowadays I prefer the Microsoft way to have all features at my disposition like above programs. I do not know every single feature of Word and Excel, although I am quite an expert. But it is a real commodity to have 99% of the features available if you should ever need to use them! Working with software is like appetite. The more you use a piece of software, the more things you want to do with it.
When I want to perform a certain job, I just query the help until I find out how it can be done. And most of the times there is a solution. A very good Help that explains things in detail is essential.
The only thing that is important: it has to perform the basic tasks out of the box such as playing, ripping, burning, managing media, cataloguing, watching images and videos.
I also feel that the more individual programs MJ can replace the better. With Office you hardly need extra apps or add-ons, because something is missing.
So you could develop some big vision for MJ like: What Office is for work, MJ is for entertainment. Probably there are still a few steps to go until you reach that goal!
I also read once in a interview with Bill Gates himself about adding features at Microsoft: It is based solely on numbers. They add features requested by the masses of users and not by the few. That's why some features like managing disk partitions never make it to get into Windows, very few compared to the masses are using these features.
I know you are not a friend of Microsoft, but if you want to become great, it may be wise to learn from those that already made it!
By the way: I got into MJ about one year ago, because I felt that WMP was very limited in organizing my media collection, although overall I found that WMP was very good - but in one mayor feature they failed!
Jaguu
Post by: KingSparta on September 01, 2002, 03:25:39 am
Media Jukebox(Free)
---- Play Options(Free)
---- Basic Tag Editing (Free)
---- Basic Skining(Free)
---- EQ(Add-In $5.00)
---- DSP(Add-In $5.00)
---- Visuals(Add-In $5.00)
---- Advanced Tag Editing(Add-In $5.00)
---- Slide Show(Add-In $5.00)
---- Advanced Skining(Add-In $5.00)
---- TV Support(Add-In $5.00)
---- WebRadio(Add-In $5.00)
---- Rip(Add-In $5.00)
---- Burn(Add-In $5.00)
---- Media Server(Add-In $5.00)
Etc...
Listening to: 'Der Kommissar' from 'Rock Of The 80'S Volume 4' by 'Falco' on Media Jukebox
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 03:39:56 am
That could get complicated if someone has a system crash and needs to redo everything.
Post by: KingSparta on September 01, 2002, 03:50:20 am
MJ Restore Page
InStall The Following
[X] Media Jukebox
[X] EQ(Licensed)
[_] DSP(Add-In $5.00)
[_] Visuals(Add-In $5.00)
[X] Advanced Tag Editing(Add-In $5.00)
[_] Slide Show(Licensed)
[X] Advanced Skining(Licensed)
[_] TV Support(Add-In $5.00)
[_] WebRadio(Add-In $5.00)
[X] Rip(Licensed)
[X] Burn(Licensed)
[X] Media Server(Add-In $5.00)
[Download only Licensed Items & Free Items] [Download Selected] [Download All]
Etc...
The Restore Page Could tell a user what was already licensed, and select the items, the user then has a choice to add Add-on items and pay for the new add-ons at the same time.
the user hits the download button and it all installs.
Listening to: 'Died In Your Arms Tonight' from 'The Best Of' by 'Cutting Crew' on Media Jukebox
Post by: ejgutierrez on September 01, 2002, 04:01:52 am
In my case, i have a pub in spain and i need mj for playing videos and visualizations in full-screen mode in a projector. mj for me its a great program but it has two "problems":
1 - As i know it doesn'n support winamp visualizations ( which reduces considerably the number of visualizations that i can play in one night). It hasn't been implemented a plug-in for supporting winamp visualizations.
2 - When i play the videos in full-screen everytime it changes the song it appears a really annoying toolbar. Although i select the option auto-hide bars, the first three seconds it appears and then it hides.
This problems i think there would be easy to solve with options ( specially the second one) and believe me it would "save my life". The first one is probably more complicated, but with a plug-in manager like WMP or Winamp, it shouldn`t be very difficult.
I want to say with this example is that a little option or feature can help a lot of people and can help a lot. Give to advanced users opportunity to configure mj as they like or need. And let beginners to listen songs with play and stop button.
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 04:07:31 am
Post by: zevele1 on September 01, 2002, 04:29:07 am
Look like good ideas
Post by: Mirko on September 01, 2002, 04:54:40 am
This sounds like a good idea. But... as I may know some customers, they tend to not pay at all. _If_ they pay for a program, they usually want to have "all in". I personally wouldn't like it very much to pay for every bit of software, that I want to use (e.g. DSP and EQ). But the positive about your idea is that I don't have to pay for things I personally don't like (Visualizations).
On the other side: paying over 50$ for a good Jukebox seems like a lot of money. My favorite idea is the "beginning, advanced, experienced" type of interface. I personally don't like this, because I think I didn't get everything with beginning mode only (as this is the truth usually). And I think I'm quite able to decide which option to play with and which not (even if I don't I'm able to restore the old once).
Maybe the options should be logically ordered and should be described in detail (on the dialog or maybe in tooltips). Then even a beginning user may understand the "why's" behind the most features. I consider myself an experience user of software in general, but I usually find out more day by day. And I like that feeling.
If JRiver has do decide "more options" against "add complexity" I think man has to think over the way options are presented. It's not a good idea to see "more options" and "add complexity" opposite (because this is not always true, look at word for example).
HTH,
Mirko
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 05:49:40 am
Afterall, you have the final word.
Post by: JimH on September 01, 2002, 06:01:57 am
Like I said above, we're worried about how complicated the options are becoming. It's common for someone to suggest a little change that we can implement in a few minutes, but if it requires another check box, we have to ask ourselves "is this something many people will care about?"
The three modes (beginner, intermediate, expert) sounds good, but it will trip up people. For example, Nila suggested tabs for each mode. We know from experience that some people will miss the fact that there are tabs (the v8 properties page, for example).
Similarly, having an "advanced" button would clean up the interface, but some people would ask "How do I ....".
Organizing options was suggested by Mirko, but there are a lot of options that don't fit under a category that can be described simply.
Support is a big issue in this. We need to minimize the number of times people have to ask. It's frustrating for the asker and it's time consuming and tedious for the person who answers.
Keep in mind, also, that the people who spend much time here tend to be the more experienced users. We're getting a slightly skewed picture.
The discussion above is very helpful.
Thanks,
Jim
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 06:15:37 am
Keep in mind, also, that the people who spend much time here tend to be the more experienced users. We're getting a slightly skewed picture.
Maybe Jim. But I would venture a guess that at any given time there are a lot of lurkers reading and picking off tidbits of info as well. Many, myself in particular, have no qualms about posting to these boards. So I guess I would consider myself an advancing user. Or a chatterbox, that should really get a life, who doesn't mind answering questions that I know. Have you ever counted how many hits you have in a day? May tell of a clearer picture.
Post by: Galley on September 01, 2002, 06:26:39 am
View it here
Post by: ejgutierrez on September 01, 2002, 06:36:14 am
There are a lot of user that only use word for writing, changing the font type, changing the font size, underline, and little more.
In the other hand there are advanced users that uses all the options and posibilities of word ( macros). You use word and you buy or install all the options. The way you use word is up to you. ( asking how to make this, reading books, searching on-line manuals ...). If you are interested in doing one thing, you have to "move" to learn it.
And if you are not interested simply, use the simple things word has. How many people that use word know macros ? 10% perhaps ? But word is a complete word processor, and it gives to the users the oportunity of using macros. If you learn macros you will have plenty of benefits. If word didn't support macros it would be a poor word processor.
Mj in my opinion has to have a lot of options, and allow users to configure it. Its up to the users how to make it. Of course you can help them ( faq, how tos, forums ...). The problem would be if mj dont give the users the oportunity of making it. As my example above, for me the problem is that mj dont allow me to hide always the bars in videos. For you perhaps is a minor thing, but for me its not. And if there were a way to hide the toolbars, i would have to read all documentation, ask in forums, .... everything in my hand to make it.
Give the users freedom to choose
Post by: DocLotus on September 01, 2002, 06:53:49 am
>>Keep in mind, also, that the people who spend much time here tend to be the more experienced users. We're getting a slightly skewed picture.<<
* 95 percent of people don’t participate in forums… they are the common users or ‘solders’.
* 5 percent of us do participate in forums… we are the leaders or ‘generals’.
* Solders without leaders are useless in battle against a well lead opposition (Microsoft?).
* Wars are fought by ‘solders’ but are won by ‘generals’.
Point is… we are the ones who have to take the lead & plot the future direction of MJ so the ‘solders’ don’t have to go to war to often.
Post by: JimH on September 01, 2002, 06:59:14 am
> As my example above, for me the problem is that mj dont allow me to hide always the bars in videos.
I noticed that the first time you said it. We can do it, but it won't get done if it hides in a thread here. Please start a new one and explain why you need it.
Post by: ejgutierrez on September 01, 2002, 07:36:07 am
as i said before mj has to have all the complexity the community asks for as far as developers agree with it. Increasing complexity will increase flexibility and more users will be happier with the product.
My answer to this thread is be as complex as you can. The only thing is how to implement this complexity. ( wizards, different level downloads, full-advanced options plug-in ...).
Post by: AlonsoN on September 01, 2002, 08:13:29 am
I was sitting in the thinking room and take back a little of what I said. I don't like wizards as they tend to be used, but wizards and/or interactive tutorials might be a great tool to help users with some of the more advanced and less obvious functions of MJ.
For instance look through Interact at what questions tend to come up from new users trying to spread their wings and help with those things. Burning, Media Server, Web Remote, Smart Lists, Labeler, wma vs mp3 vs ape vs oog come to mind. Imagine list of tools under an Assistants menu. That would be enough to point users to some of the powerful features of MJ and get them familiar and comfortable with them.
I posit this: If folks see references to things that they don't already know how to use from experience with other applications they think "complex and scarry" but once they use a function it becomes "useful, easy, obvious and necessary" The trick is getting them to cross that Rubicon. So it's not the pages of options that turn folks off, but menu options and forms that don't immediately click.
Look, there could be seventy different ways that MJ could behave when the user shuffles and plays songs, but that won't bother anybody because they won't know about it unless they GO LOOKING for options. They will get bothered when the option they are looking for is not there. If it's not there they will say "Uck, it's complicated and still does not do what I want." Even worse will have a nagging doubt that it does, but they can't figure it out.
On the other hand menu options like Media Server, Download Manager, MusicEx Manger, Smartlists, that are right there in your face, and are not obvious because they are not familiar. Those are the things that you have to lead the user by the hand through so they become easy and obvious.
Post by: lee269 on September 01, 2002, 08:35:26 am
Im not sure I like the beginner/advanced mode idea. Ive never seen this implemented successfully in an application, although Im sure there are some out there which use this to good effect. I think you would be passing the problem down a level, because you could have the same arguments over which features go into each mode, etc. PLus, as has been said, I think it might make answering support queries more confusing. In one sense you almost have beginner mode already in the form of mini-me, which could appear as a simple player.
I think wizards could go a long way to helping users get the best out of the options in MJ. In particular I think Nila has identified the main areas where wizards could be used to good effect, especially a 'setup wizard' to configure main options when MJ is first installed (many programs already have this) and a playlist/smartlist wizard to help users realize the power of smartlists.
Finally, I think you should have an 'MJ Assistant' - perhaps a little animated paperclip - which monitors your activity intelligently and pops up to offer you help when it identifies what you are doing :)
Post by: JimH on September 01, 2002, 08:52:58 am
Oh, please....
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 09:50:59 am
On the other hand, this kind of option would also take away programming time from the very features the folks in this thread are looking for. Trade off anyone willing to put up with? Not likely. Now your in a catch 22 of not alienating current, and diehard faithfuls, and at the same time overwhelming the new user with the not-so-obvious things MJ has to offer. What to do, what to do??
I don't envy any of you guys in the next few months of development of version 9. Must really suck to have so many strings attached, and all pulling in slightly different directions. I assume there are going to be many brainstorming sessions by the J River gang from this point on to figure where this all going.
You did let this cat out of the bag, and now the fun really begins. How to tame it while being hobbled with all them strings pulling...
Post by: lee269 on September 01, 2002, 09:57:54 am
Ive been thinking about this a bit more though. Generally the way I use MJ is not to save loads of playlists, but build them up for an evenings listening and then clear playing now the next time. My wife is probably a typical 'beginner', and I have had tried to show her how to use MJ in the past (with some success but I am not the best teacher I admit).
The concept of playlists and playing now is not difficult to get over, but I get the impression that its not intuitive for the new user to know quite how to get stuff into the playing now playlist. Partly I think this is because the tree has too many nodes, with no way to hide unneccessary branches. I get a TV tuner node, but I have no TV card in my PC. A way to hide branches you dont want would really help here. The next thing is reorganising playing now - my wife double clicks the files she wants and MJ is set to add them as next to play, but then she wants to reorder them in playing now. Drag and drop is fine here, but what I am leaning towards is something that has been asked before - a third playing now window. To be able to drag files from a media library pane to a playing now pane is as simple as I can think of. For my part I never use the 'target', just right/double click on the file. I dont think the target is intuitive enough.
At the very least I think that people are used to a row of menu items and a toolbar row below that. Implement this and have standard toolbar buttons 'Playing Now', 'Media Library', 'Create Playlist', which could point to wizards. Also, you have 'Rip CD' and 'Burn CD'. Ive just looked in WMP and it has 'Copy from CD' and 'Copy to CD' - to me this would seem to be more understandable to new users.
Im not holding up WMP or Real as models of useability excellence - in fact the reason I bought MJ in the first place was because it is a proper organisational tool, a standard windows application and not a style-over-substance skin obsessed player.
Post by: lee269 on September 01, 2002, 09:59:59 am
Post by: RemyJ on September 01, 2002, 10:03:23 am
First, "Clippy" should die a thousand deaths. Having said that, Microsoft's Office suite IS a good role model (from a UI perspective anyway). The average soldier has no clue of the power and flexability available to them. The generals know all to well.
Wizards: OK if they,re not intrusive. You should always be able to call the wizard easily IF YOU WANT TO, but you should never be forced to use it or forced to dismiss it every time. Everything doesn't need a wizard however.
User Levels: Been down this road a few times over the past 20 years. Never seen them work. Single biggest source of support calls. "...But I don't HAVE that option on my menu!!"
I'm in favor of of mega-flexability in the configuration (including configuration of the UI (toolbars and menus))with a good set of defaults that will slightly challenge a first-time user.
Here's another thought, If you think you'll lose revenue by making it more complex, make it up by publishing "Media Jukebox for Dummies".
Post by: gkerber on September 01, 2002, 10:05:40 am
Novices (not novices for long) don't use MJ, really, the idea of having a computer based music system is not done lightly.
(Somebody didn't like UNIX, I wish Windows was more UNIX like!)
Different user levels might be good, not showing all of the features until the user is ready for it.
Things like being able to choose which sound card MJ uses is critical for me, and it's really an expert feature.
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 10:16:40 am
I know. Just making it clear on my end about what I think of them gizmos tapping at the screen like I'm some kind of stooge.
And I don't think a thousand deaths is enough for that little $#!|PLS|.
Post by: lee269 on September 01, 2002, 10:28:23 am
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 10:48:29 am
As much as I hate to admit it, this could be the time for yabb or something close to it. I visit Matt's site once in a while and have found that it wasn't as bad as I previously thought. The way it is layed out isn't as confusing as I had imagined. If a b12 fortified (read-complex), MJ 9 and beyond is going to need more support this may be a way to handle some of the increased load it/they will generate. I think the way FAQs - trouble shooting - tips and what have you could be put right out front where anyone can find them, would ease a ton of the burden from J River.
But then we lose the familiarity, and in general good natured aspect of the current Interact. Which is why I like hanging out here so much. Boy, I can't believe I'm thinking this..
Post by: KingSparta on September 01, 2002, 10:59:46 am
I like the cat, it's so cute.
I guess we can see that no matter what MJ is we all have diffrent views of how someting should be an no one will be happy.
If a program that can be completly customized by the user and options added as the user grows with the program then that program will (IMHO) will win the market.
'Year of the Cat' Charted At 08 In 1976
Listening to: 'Year of the Cat' from 'Sounds Of The Seventies - 1977' by 'Al Stewart' on Media Jukebox
You Can See All Of My 6200|PLS| MP3s On The Top 40 List from 1940 - 2002 By Using Media Server, Built Into Media Jukebox.
My Media Server IP Address: 24.88.229.242.:80
Note: Use The Latest Media Jukebox 8.0.348, Media Server Version 1.0.135 Older Versions
Post by: RemyJ on September 01, 2002, 11:03:39 am
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 11:16:17 am
1) I'm not sure that may be the right answer. MJ can't do it all now, but that doesn't mean we are unhappy with it. We can all see that it is an evolving product. Look at some of the other rubbish on the market and see where MJ stands then.
2) >>> options added as the user grows with the program <<<
Or maybe just shown how to awaken them. I garner as much about MJ as I can everyday from others experiences. I'm sure I am not alone here. They are there, I just need a nudge once in a while to get to them.
Post by: joe mama on September 01, 2002, 11:20:46 am
Novices (not novices for long) don't use MJ, really, the idea of having a computer based music system is not done lightly.
That's probably true. I would imagine most people start out just using WMP, then they hear about Winamp or Musicmatch, and then maybe end up at MJ when they realize the possibilties of a computer based music system. Although, I know a lot of advanced users who just stick with Winamp.
Post by: KingSparta on September 01, 2002, 11:25:33 am
I do like the new MS OS Windows XP where it lists programs i use most on the list.
Maybe as a user uses options the most common options a user uses can be on a list and icon list along with basic options used for first timers.
Post by: gkerber on September 01, 2002, 11:37:12 am
I have XP, set for Windows Classic
I have never used Visualations (might have like them in highschool when I was high...., so many years ago....)
I really like a no-nonsense OS and program.
That all said,the great thing about the lastest OS and programs is thier customization. I don't like the cute fluffy stuff, others do. And we all get what we want. Cool.
Post by: phelt on September 01, 2002, 11:45:27 am
This discussion is reminiscent of the "various artists" thread. In this case, as in that one, I'm pretty happy with the way that MJ works now. Everything on the surface of MJ is pretty straightforward. If I need to tweak something I can drill down into Settings, etc. I have no need for the Media Server and I have no idea how it works - this is a good thing. If I want to play with it I can dig and get to it, but I am not forced to configure something that I don't use.
There is also the responsibility of the user to take into account. Once something reaches a certain level of complexity, there is no way around education. Here and in other software forums I've seen a lot of "Why doesn't it do things my way?" posts by new users. The answer usually is "It can, here's how, BTW this is in the help file".
Post by: zevele1 on September 01, 2002, 11:53:47 am
It is so easy to ask.
If a support by email,i'am sure that the mail will be set to an automatic answer:your question is adressed in help file.
The other problem with the forum is that if you ask about something you use only from time to time,the next time you use it ,you do not remember the 2 months old answer.
I started to compile some answers[to me or to others],like it i [hope]would not ask the same thing 3 times a year
Post by: Charlemagne 8 on September 01, 2002, 12:12:15 pm
Having said the first sentence, OF COURSE I have something else to say.
There are "free" users, and I feel that this would constitute the majority ... check downloads:purchases to get a better idea.
There are Expert/hopefuls that will spend A LITTLE money on a piece of software. $24.95 seems to be a magic number to me. If it had been $29.95, I wouldn't have taken the plunge.
Beyond that, $5.00 ($4.95?) a pop for each additional feature appeals to me. If I'll do it, lots of other people will, too.
The question was "Should it be more complicated?". It could be but doesn't have to be. Go with the flow. Helpful, huh?
CVIII
Post by: roving cowboy on September 01, 2002, 01:13:57 pm
what i mainly dis agree with is taking the basic stuff and the eq off the free version. i have 5 computers and am getting another one so i dont want to have to pay for the program for all my computers.
i should have the ablity to move it to my other computers sure that makes it likely to be copied and passed around to others.
but you can add something to the code that looks for some id of some kind that the person that orginal bought it has to put in their computers.
say like some code they have to fill out on your computer servers purcess page. so only they could use the paid for version.
that way if they pass it to some one else and put their code in a computer that is not theirs it will work but all the info would not be there for any updates cause the other person would not know the needed info to get it.
but the orginal buyer could still go to your web site and put the needed info in to update any or all of their computers.
thus putting a block on the non paying user from getting the lic. updates.
but allowing the orginal buyer to put the same lic. on all their computers cause they know the info needed to get the lic. updates
that would also allow you to trace back to the orginal buyer if someone reverse enginerd the pirated copy they had. because they would not beable to get the code out of that copy.
sounds like a winner to me?
Post by: KingSparta on September 01, 2002, 01:21:53 pm
>> eq off the free version.
But it already is a Plus Feature
From Features Page: Integrated DSP/EQ (PLUS Feature)
Post by: sekim on September 01, 2002, 01:36:07 pm
roving cowboy - This may only be the tip of the iceberg.
As far as the rest, J River has to be careful about privacy issues here. This a whole other can of worms....and a sore point that may best be left out of this for now. Past threads allude to this if you care to search the forum and find out for yourself.
Post by: mikeh on September 01, 2002, 02:20:24 pm
A. It should be simple to use - which it is.
Mj is a very complex product - but you have to go looking for the complex bits. If you only want to do the basic stuff its really easy to use. Its got lots of gadgets that i still come across every day, but they dont get in the way of the average user. I think it really is a product that bends itself to the advanced user. Before i came across it i tried all the usual culprits. Real, MM MS etc.
Being honest if i wasn't an advanced user i would probably buy the others as they look far better than MJ, MJ looks old and boring compared to the competition. Real One for instance looks brilliant, plays all my CD's and does ripping and recording - and its free.
Ive used them all and MJ is the best product for me, but i can see why it probably doesnt sell as well as the others.
Never mind what the product does - what does it look like. Thats whats gonna sell it.
Personally i'd be quite happy to pay more for an advanced level with the extra functions etc. $100 for the full product would not be unreasonable considering how much ive spent on other parts of my hi-fi.
JimH - I think youve got a real problem with MJ. Its too good for the mass of standard users, and the advanced users are not enough to pay for the development. Basically i think you should diversify and supplent this product with some new products - rather than trying to make MJ do everything.
mikeh.
Post by: Sam. on September 01, 2002, 04:00:37 pm
I agree with nearly everything Nila said.
Better organization of options. Yes.
Wizards. Yes.
Nila: Having thousands of options isn't a problem, setting them all up so as not to confuse the user is the problem.
Completely agree.
Alonso: So it's not the pages of options that turn folks off, but menu options and forms that don't immediately click.
Competely agree.
Please keep adding features. But please also focus on the user interface. Make everything intuitively easy. Pay someone lots of money to design a great UI. (Most people cannot make great UIs.)
At the risk of sounding like a moron, let me share with you my experience with some of the "advanced features."
DSP Studio
This tool is very well explained. Easy to understand. But hard to find; perhaps move this to the Tools menu.
Media Editor
My first attempt many months ago to truncate and save an mp3 file failed because I had not downloaded the right encoder to create the new mp3 file. The error message wasn't helpful. I gave up in frustration.
MusicEx Manager
I don't know what the hell this is. (The recent death of my hard drive left me without the licensed version of MJ. Haven't gotten around to restoring the license. Perhaps it'll be clearer when I restore, but I'm guessing it won't.)
Media Server
If I weren't a message board lurker, I wouldn't even know what this was. I have 2 PCs and I'd love to try this, but it wasn't self-explanatory when I clicked on it. So I gave up and dismissed it as too difficult. I'm sure there's a great help page on it, but I'm not going to hunt for it. And neither will most users.
Download Manager
I've figured it out now, but at first, my reaction was, Where do I begin? What do I use it for? Add URL? Huh?
Skin Manager
Easy to use.
Options
Not bad, but there is room for improvement. And having lots of options does not necessarily make it difficult to use or understand. It's a matter of grouping and labeling. The more options the better.
Plug-In Manager
Excellent. Plug-ins are over the heads of many users, but you have clear explanations for each type of plug-in. Well done.
The Target Bar
Thank you Lee269. Now I know what that silly target is for.
Search
The basic search is intuitive. Ctrl-F. The on-the-fly aspect is wonderful. I haven't gotten around to learning the advanced search features, but I'm guessing you use them for Smart Lists.
Smart Lists
I'm sure I'll love it when I get around to figuring out how it works.
Properties
MJ's best features. Extremely powerful. I'm guessing that most users don't know it's there.
View Schemes
Another hidden feature. I've created the views I want, but again, I think most users don't know it's there.
Other comments
Re Pricing, please keep it simple.
You don't need beginner and advanced modes. Make the advanced features easier to use.
If you choose to stay in the mass market, I hope you're identifying new features from WMP, MMJ, and Real, as much as from culling this message board. And if you're okay with open communication, you may benefit from asking users here what they like about each of your competitors. This takes lots of courage. :)
Post by: Nila on September 01, 2002, 05:26:38 pm
here's where I think you should have two wizards that would position them straight away easily for new users and make it totally intuitive (I also think there should be an option to hide this).
On the Playlist item as the 1st child under it's tab you should have: Create new Playlist and inside that you should explain what a smart list is and ask them if they want a standard playlist or a smart list.
Again, on the Media Library, one for View Scheme's.
The search criteria box at the bottom is EXTREMELY useful and is what I was after for ages to make a playlist show only full albums. Unfortunately it's not very self explanatory, and I probably could have found the answer in the help file but like most users who want to just use it to organise and play their music easily on their PC, I doubt we're going to go near the help file too much. What would be far more useful is a little ? at the end of it that explained what it was or a ? next to the X in the top corner so that everything had a tool tip.
Also, standard users like myself wont know the different keywords that can be entered here. A wizard asking if it wanted to be run after we created a playlist (with a check box to permenantly disable that feature) that helped us create a search criteria by like giving us a list of fields etc. would be HUGELY useful.
You've created a lot of features but I think you need to do what all of us programmers forget as to us all the features are self explanatory as we made them, you need to spend time on things like tooltips, explanations of features etc.
5 Minutes spent writing a good tooltip will make that feature be used by hundreds more users. They'll know what it's used for and with a few examples included too they'll be able to use it in minutes. And once they've used it once they'll have the motivation to move into the help file to find out the full power it offers.
The more features u have, the more users who are likely to find your product having the answer to the features they wanted.
Good explanations of the features and how to use them is all that's necessary. Tooltips are very useful and so are those ? in the corner of the forms next to the X's.
Post by: JimH on September 01, 2002, 06:30:35 pm
> [on Media Server] I'm sure there's a great help page on it, but I'm not going to hunt for it. And neither will most users.
This is a problem for us. Even if we right good documentation, people still don't read it.
It's easy to say "well just make the UI better". There is obviously more we could do in this area, but a better UI still doesn't make it easy. Easier yes, but it may still be formidable for a new user.
There are a lot of little things we can do. No question. The suggestion on adding DSP to the menu is an obvious one. It's there in V9.
Post by: Mirko on September 01, 2002, 09:31:45 pm
My father is in the IT-business for about 30 years now. And he said (and still says) that software which he cannot use without reading the help is not worth to try. I think this attitude is somewhat unrealistic, but it may show how the "normal" user think. Btw he _is_ able to figure out software on his own, but the quoted sentence is his usual answer to UI-issues :-)
Microsoft does intensive UI-testing. Because they know the way people get into software, I think. I do enjoy reading long helptexts and handbooks. But most people propably don't.
I think the UI MJ uses is quite good. It does not show to much possibilities on the first view. But as someone else said, you would not discover the power of MJ if you don't look for it (e.g. view schemes: quite helpfull but difficult to "find out" if you don't look; the same goes for filtering (I _like_ that, but it's hard to find, it took me a couple of days only to see them and even more to find the filter criterias in the help file (you do hide them very good, but not too good *g*)).
So maybe "tip of the day" would really be an improvement. But don't fill them up by useless tips, because then users do deactive them quite fast (as I do if they bore me).
Maybe you could collect the interact-forum-postings and try to filter them down to a few common issues/questions. Then don't cover them in a FAQ, because this is reading also and I think we agree that most users don't do this, but try to convert them into usefull tips or maybe wizards. I can only speak for myself when I say this: I would help you doing this, if I can.
Maybe do some sort of "wizard runtime" and let us help you building the content (this I have done some time ago for my own software; using very simple text-files). If there are enough "hooks" the wizards might be attached to, this might be a solution. So you can distribute different sets of wizards ("Building CDRs", "Organizing efficient" and so on). I have some more ideas how to do this, if you would like to hear, say so ;-)
HTH,
Mirko
Post by: MmmmJoel on September 01, 2002, 09:50:52 pm
I would not shell out $50 for a more complex Media Jukebox. I do not use half the features that you have (I use Nero for burning (licensed with burner), use EAC for ripping (free), Zoom Player for video (free), etc). $25 is the right price for me. I think many users are in the same shoes.
I paid $25 for the excellent APE support, tagging, and organization features. I wouldn't be surprised if you lose more willing buyers than you gain because the increased cost would drive off more users than attracted by some obscure function. It's not hard to imagine, because like you said, how many people would actually use the "Delete file after playing" feature?
I do think that making Media Jukebox more modular may be a good idea. Not to the extent that MachineHead suggested, but separating audio use (including organization), video use (including tv), imagine use (with MJ9), and burning functionality might be good borders. Something to consider, at least.
On the other hand, I do not think that Media Jukebox is an overwhelmingly complex program compared to other media players in terms of its interface. You have done a good job at keep the UI clean and managable and wouldn't worry so much about overwhelming a new user. I'd have an easier time teaching MJ than Winamp, for sure.
Post by: Cmagic on September 01, 2002, 10:39:57 pm
my 2 euro-cents,
One way to please both simple and advance users could be to add an integrated scripting facility in MJ. Something lixe SaxBasic (a Visual Basic for Apps clone) would allow access to the full MJAutomation classes from within the MJ scripting engine.
That way MJ could be the same as it is now and the seasoned user could write a script to add such and such feature of its liking.
Of course you would have to set up a different licensing scheme :
like MJ classic at $25 for normal 'push button' users
and MJ with scripting at $50 for advanced users.
just an idea.
Have a nice day
Christian
Post by: Nick_LeFave on September 01, 2002, 10:52:20 pm
I disagree with a package model. That is basically what winamp is. You get the basic shell program and then go hunt for plugins that work with it. It has been my experience, that you can almost get all the plugins you need (for free, except DFX) to approximate Media Jukebox (I said almost, you do sacrifice uniformity and good support, so wouldn't necessarily go that route anymore). Package model also confuses the basic user. They can't read details. They think that all the features listed in the copy apply to what they are buying (I have experience here, I worked for Parsons Software, The Learning Company, Broderbund, and Mattel Interactive which sold unlock keys for features that were listed as possible expansions in the feature copy. More people were completely p1sses off becaused that thought they bought everything. This created ill will and loss of money. Why? Because angry customer would call their credit card company and cancel payment/use their warranty ability). All the features in one product is why I bought MediaJukebox to begin with. I was a happy MusicMatch Jukebox user until I wanted OGG support.
Don't raise the price beyond $29.95. I feel that $30.00 is a reasonable market price. The only place where I can see a price above $30.00 is if you create the main jukebox and offer it with a suite of programs (ie. Make Download manager as powerful as Getright. Incorporate DX/VST support in the Wave Editor. Stand alone super duper tag editor and waffle iron.). I would pay more for a real suite of programs. That would get me to around $39.95 to $44.95.
Don't feel like you have to implement every user request. What is important is that the program has a consistent user interface and does what it promises. You as the programmers have a right to say this is the MediaJukebox concept behind this functionality. This does not mean you don't evolve the software, but it also isn't worth comprimising the gestalt/methodology of a program to make the switch change from blink/buzz/tinkle to tinkle/tinkle/blink/boom.
Right now, I feel quite confident that my mom can use MediaJukebox with no special tweaks. Maybe she wouldn't get all the power out of it, but she would still be able to play her mp3s. Remember the "classic"/"basic"/"average" user doesn't want the $6.00 burger for $3.95, they just want a burger that tastes good every time. They don't even want it their way, they just don't want to be hassled to get the burger. They think only "I want a burger", not I "want protein mass made from beef with vegetables products organized like this on maybe a bun made of raw grains with a twist of bourbon."
I think J River is on track with MediaJukebox. The program isn't complicated for the "classic" user and is extremely customizable for the "power" user. Currently the program is properly priced (maybe even over priced just due to the current licensing model) and any price increase would mean more people stick with WMP or Winamp 3.
So don't worry. Give yourself all a pat on the back.
Post by: slikvik on September 02, 2002, 04:58:33 am
I think the interface is at saturation point. I'm not saying don't add new features, but when you do, limit them to pull downs and advanced buttons - then people will leave them alone until they're ready.
I wanted friends to come round and kinda use it as a jukebox they could all use. This is just about possible in its current config.
Cheers guys
Post by: Shotgun2 on September 02, 2002, 08:32:45 am
IMHP - Come out with your program. If I like it so much as to be a needed improvement over v8, I will pay a fair market price for it. If not???
Good luck - sg2