INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => Media Center 17 => Topic started by: JimH on May 11, 2012, 06:24:16 am
-
Just a shame that these "reviews" almost consequently gets a minus for GUI and Theater View eye candy.
Carl,
I've tried to let you have your say on eye candy, but 50 times is enough don't you think? The GUI has changed a lot in the last year, but our focus is on substance. If that bothers you, there are plenty of other choices available. Please drop the subject now. If it's important, others will take up the cause.
Jim
-
Carl,
I've tried to let you have your say on eye candy, but 50 times is enough don't you think? The GUI has changed a lot in the last year, but our focus is on substance. If that bothers you, there are plenty of other choices available. Please drop the subject now. If it's important, others will take up the cause.
Jim
I have not touched this subject for months now. The reason is that it HAS gotten a some attention in this period, as you point out. And that is great. It's also because I'm wary of these responses each time I try to prove a valid point about functionality AND design of Theater View. Despite of what you might think, I've almost never suggested things just for the "bling".
In my replay I was merely pointing out that despite of these changes, there are serious HTPC people and reviewers that still think it's subpar in this field (the standard is pretty much set by XBMC, MediOS and others). I would say that what these people say is very important, and just because they have no account on this forum and writes a post about it, does not make it any less important. What conclusions you make of it is up to you. As always.
-
there are serious HTPC people and reviewers that still think it's subpar in this field ...
There are people who don't like the color blue. It doesn't mean we should follow their advice.
What anandtech said (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72016.msg487721#msg487721) was more important. "For those wanting things to work out of the box, JRiver Media Center 17 is highly recommended."
-
Well, A Media Player doesn't need to be a piece of art. Non theless Eye Candy means better usability. For example I find Google much more usefull with the new look, simply because things are structured and colors have contrast even on low contrast screens.
I just say people buy Macs because it actually is some kind of art...
As of now I'm happy with JRiver, but I couldn't convince even one of my friends to buy MC... They are all kind of used to the iTunes Eye Candy. Small things make perfection, but perfection is not a small thing.
After all it is about making money for the JRiver team...
We live in times, where people spend quite a lot in expensive headphones that look good (Starting with "b" and ending with "s") when JRiver and their old headphones would produce a much better result, than 6 times the money for new headphones.
But JRiver is moving into the right direction, the recent skins are not flawless but much better than previous ones, great work after all.
-
I just want to
briefly add... I read that same line that Carl mentioned, but what occurred to me wasn't that MC needed more capabilities in Theater View, but that the default Views offered might need some work.
MC's abilities have evolved dramatically with MC17. The automatic metadata lookup system provides a much larger swath of the "average users" with much more detailed metadata about their files, and Theater View has a number of new and interesting options. However, the stock views in Standard View and, to a lesser degree, in Theater View are still based on some old assumptions about the metadata people are likely to have on-hand, and on old capabilities of the system. I completely agree with Jim that MC's design is much better-than some of those other more "flashy" options out there (which are often garish and cluttered), but I don't know that the stock views really showcase how beautiful and functional Theater View (and Standard View) can be if you put a little elbow grease in.
I wondered when read that if Ganesh from Anandtech had tested using my library, rather than what comes stock, if he would have found it lacking in the pizazz department at all?
But how to fix it? Everyone is different, and there is a strong need to keep the default views simple enough to be understood by a novice user. Plus, how do you go about the process of designing a bunch of tweaks to the views and then testing them before choosing what changes you might want to implement.
Well... I've been rolling an idea around in my head for a bunch of months now that might help with this, and I think now might be a good time to start the process. Particularly because real work on MC18 hasn't started yet, and if the stock views are going to be altered, it would probably be best to do it timed with a major version.
So... Here's my idea:
I'm going to post a special "cleared" version of my Library Backup (no assets included, tweaked to remove some things that are specific to my filesystem setup or whatever). People can then download the ZIP, make a new blank library, and restore the backup to try it out with their own files on their own system. Other expert users can do the same, and we can build a "library of Libraries" that people can check out. Then, we can all mine them for ideas and JRiver can look for some simple, clean ideas that might be applicable to the stock views.
I'm happy to host them on my site if needed. I'm still thinking about the structure of this, and how (technically) it would be executed. I'd like for each Library in the "system" to be able to have its own set of Screenshots and Documentation on how it is set up and how particular views are used. I'm not sure on how people would "submit" content to this system. I'd prefer to honestly keep it more manual (you PM me and send me a temporary link where I can download the ZIP file and documentation, and then we put up the record, or whatever), because I don't want it to get filled up with "junk".
It could also serve as a bit of a "showcase" for what MC can do, and perhaps make it easier for people to get some custom views without having to figure the whole system out and design it themselves.
In any case, I'm going to do it with my Library soon (though I need to get the server back up first), and I'm happy to host at least a handful of other good example Libraries from other users. There will be more on this coming over the next couple weeks.
-
I love Theater view. It has way more eye candy than SageTV did. You had to do some serious modding to get add-on to work... if they worked at all. I was more than excited when i saw Hulu, Netflix and more in theater view. I admit there are a few things I would like and I have requested but I think Theater view is awesome!
I found MC17 from a comparison chart/review and ignored the other 4 or 5 choices because of lack of functionality.
While I am at it, I've written iphone and droid apps and the amount of money I make compared to the amount of work I put into developement and updates will probably pay off in a few years if I'm lucky so I really appreceate the constant updates done by these guys. Ok I'm done kissing a** now ;D .
-
What anandtech said (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72016.msg487721#msg487721) was more important. "For those wanting things to work out of the box, JRiver Media Center 17 is highly recommended."
I agree. It is VERY important. The system has evolved dramatically in the last version or two, to help new users out with time consuming tasks like meta data scraping and confusing/complicated tasks such as setting up codecs and tuning those settings (Red October). Each time I get into these subjects I try to point out that I really love almost every single side of MC, and I would never abandon it. Because there are no alternatives for those who have tried other apps. I tried to make the jump to XBMC, but I had to throw in the towel after 36 hours. Even just for Video. Sometimes I fail showing my gratitude for what have been done, and I might seem to be a narrow minded guy who only cares about my own issues and opinions. The reason why I'm such a persistent s o b at pursuing this subject is that I've experienced how darn difficult it is to convince people how much better this application is than their usual media center solution. Even with the big additions mentioned by Anandtech, it's still difficult to convince people. And two of the bigger reasons have been covered here already.
PHP touches the thing I often think about. People like good design and well thought of user interfaces. Everybody have different taste. Nobody can like everything exactly the same, but that does not stop companies from making things that MANY people find highly attractive, and at the same user friendly and effective. Gmail, google, facebook have all done the same. Made their products better looking, and with that also more functional or easier to use. Apple are experts on this field, and just look at how they get better market shares every day. They do not offer products that can do 10 000 things in x number of different ways. They just makes sure thing works well, and they have a clean and very good looking product. It be hardware or software. There are not many people today that can say otherwise without either stretching the truth a bit, or right out lying. XBMC is a product that many love, and it's very hard to convince people to leave it over MC. The reason is in most cases that the users does not give MC enough time to really experience it's strength (library, customization, red October++). People are VERY often driven towards looks before functionality. This goes for refrigerators, TV's, software and pretty much everything. It's the Eye Catcher, and it's VERY often what people base their first impression on. It is a large group of those out there.
I'm not saying that MC should EVER go the route of making it less functional. I'm saying that good design can and often IS the same as better functionality and easier usability. A few examples would be better caption management and control. For example adding graphical elements and alignment to captions would not only be better looking, it would be more effective to spot the wanted info. Allowing users to add more caption fields, or adding a caption code manager would help even novice users to change it to their hearts content without drowning in code. Other things like Meta data placement and info panel control in more views would give users better control of the things they want to see, and where they want to see it. This could allow for more or less art, and hence be both considered eye candy and functional for many. The adding of more dynamic view configurations in theater view would give the basic users much more control, and it would show more functionality and eye candy.
The second thing I've also thought much about is what Glynor writes about. Some of the defaults in Theater View and standard view are not the best. These things are ALSO things that people think of as graphical user interface elements, and perhaps eye candy. Without the right configuration it effectively looks like less good than theater view and standard view really could be. I think that Glynor has an excellent suggestion with the collection of the most impressive libraries, and either give those as stripped down templates to users, or perhaps to store those as a sort of template selection on first installation of MC. Users would get a MUCH better first impression than they get today. First things that comes to mind are better views and better captions. I have to admit that I've not had a fresh install in many months, but I do not think there have been much changes here.
-
Glynor you took the words right out of my keyboard.
I think to help your proposal flow well an export view feature similar to exporting a smartlist would be nice.
-
MrHaugen hits the bull's-eye.
-
So... Here's my idea:
I'm going to post a special "cleared" version of my Library Backup (no assets included, tweaked to remove some things that are specific to my filesystem setup or whatever). People can then download the ZIP, make a new blank library, and restore the backup to try it out with their own files on their own system. Other expert users can do the same, and we can build a "library of Libraries" that people can check out. Then, we can all mine them for ideas and JRiver can look for some simple, clean ideas that might be applicable to the stock views.
Glynor you took the words right out of my keyboard.
I think to help your proposal flow well an export view feature similar to exporting a smartlist would be nice.
...interesting...October 2004...version 11... :D
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=24255.0
Would anyone else find it interesting or useful to be able to share MC 'setups' with others. Things like view schemes, smartlists, playlists, visualizations, etc. Sort of like a skin. It makes your MC look different, but doesn't change your library, or files. Just makes it look and act different.
We could call them 'clothes' maybe, or 'armor'.
I'm sure many people have some great organizational ideas, or clever smartlists. there's just no good way to share them. if they were saveable, or downloadable, they would be easy to share. if I could use a couple good ideas from a few different people, I might be able to put together a better useage pattern, or workflow than what I use now. I think it would be very interesting to see how other people use MC.
I'm certain I'm not using all of the cool features to their best use for my needs, and this might be a good way to learn how others do some things better than me.
What do you guys think?
-
Thanks for the offer Glynor! I would really enjoy trying out you "pro" views.
Most of us have no clue, nor time, how do anything beyond changing a view from thumbnails to details.
Even then sometimes I see views I can't find/restore and have no clue how to do it.
MC is extremely overwhelming on that front. it can do anything, but most of us have no clue how to do it.
I care not about eye candy at all. I roll all standard views (i think). I guess I dont even really know what a non-standard view is or how to achieve it.
I look forward to seeing how you can tweak the UI other than selecting a different "skin".
To the point above about people loving iTunes bling.... who would this be? EVERY person who sees theater view rolling with background artist images drools all over my floor. Front row? please.
To the point that XBMC and maybe other are superior? I dont see it myself. I have downloaded XBMC at least 6 times at the behest of a fan. I can never really figure it out? It is more confusing than MC really.
I love MC
Cheers!
Patrick
-
To the point that XBMC and maybe other are superior? I don't see it myself. I have downloaded XBMC at least 6 times at the behest of a fan. I can never really figure it out? It is more confusing than MC really.
I love MC
Cheers!
Patrick
Agree completely after messing with it for about an hour and not getting it to do anything I wanted to the recycle bin it went and I definitely don't consider myself a novice.
-
Count me as another who is mesmerized by a few of the XBMC skins when customized properly. The Aeon Nox skin in particular is beautiful and wonderfully functional/fast even for a large collection. Without the data managing ability of JRiver or the video backend, just no way for me to justify using it in my main theater. I do, however; use it on my living room and in the den where picture quality and managing the collection are not as important. XBMC just doesn't flow well with an external player which is capable of using MadVr and all the other videophile goodies. I would happily make XBMC a memory if JRiver could make the theater view more elegant like XBMC, but it is obviously not enough of a deterrent to keep me from buying it.
I look at this this way. I spent 10's of thousands of dollars on my theater and the SW to play in it, my frontend should wow myself and those I may entertain as well. Besides, who doesn't like pretty?
Bricktop
-
To the point that XBMC and maybe other are superior? I dont see it myself. I have downloaded XBMC at least 6 times at the behest of a fan. I can never really figure it out? It is more confusing than MC really.
True. I don't stand it my self. That does not mean that people don't drop their jaws on the table when they see some of those skins (that is what I count as superior, and almost only that). This is all it takes for many people. They say "this is what I want", and then they manage with it's flaws. Blissfully unaware of the alternatives. I've experienced this MANY times. It's pretty much the same with iTunes. It's a bloated piece of crap imo. But people who don't know anything else think it's perfect. The ONLY good thing with XBMC and the clones are the Eye Candy and some functionality that comes from some of the design elements, and perhaps the configuration possibilities within the 10 foot interface.
There are so much more substance in MC, but not enough people see this because of the barriers with a bit steep learning curve, a tad outdated defaults and less flashy and functional skins than some main stream alternatives provide.
-
For what it's worth, my 2 cents...
As a recent MC17 convert from XBMC, I would love to see more theatre view options and "eye candy". I am very happy with MC17, I got it to do what I want and I am pretty sure I won't be going back to XBMC. XBMC is awesome looking but playback quality is sub par thus I had to invoke an external player.
I use MC17 for my home theatre, I't's basically all I use as I don't stream, nor do I have a bluray player and I rarely watch TV. I strictly use theatre view. Like others, I also have a significant $ investment in my gear and want my window to it all (MC17) to look as awesome as possible.
For what's it's worth, and as a happy customer, I would love to see MC18 bring many new theatre view enhancements.
-
Here is my take on the issue for what it is worth:
Theater View looks great in my opinion using the Obsidian skin. Despite this, almost every other person I have shown MC too uses XBMC instead. Why? My guess is that their taste is not the same as mine. There are a pile of skins for XBMC that look really great, but the same doesn't exist for MC. In addition there is the issue that in XBMC the skins can also change the "layout". In MC that is done via views. So for them setup is a simple as selecting a skin and trying it. They find MC harder to get to what they want, if they can do it at all.
So what is the solution to all this? It's complicated but it can be broken down and covered bit by bit. Here are list of the limitations as I see them:
1. Available skins are lacking or are hard to find.
2. The skinning engine is lacking some features that are needed to create skins comparable to XBMC.
3. Setting up the View part is difficult for new users. In addition most don't even know it exists.
To address them here are some idea's I have:
1. MC needs some better skins and access to them. I know there is forum thread for this, but it really isn't optimal. There should be an area on the site wwhere skins can be uploaded with descriptions and pictures. In addition ratings are needed so users can see how many downloads and +1's others users give the skin. It would be a good idea if users could browse\choose these skins from Theater View with the content being "captured" from the website. Perhaps a yearly contest of a free upgrade to MC for the top 10 entries would stimulate work from users?
2. Lack of features in the skinning engine. Matt and Jim summed this up well: They are not going to throw out the existing engine and it would be better if individual features were requested so they could be implemented in small chunks. Knowing this I (and others) asked for a fairly large feature (Cover View) and low and behold, it actually got implemented. And it was not a small change. What needs to happen further are requests for skin features that developers need to create better skins.
3. Theater View needs a wizard when it is started for the first time. It should allow the choosing of a skin mentioned above, and perhaps a stock view from the "library" that Glynor suggested? I can't tell you what a great idea that would be for users to be able to pick views just like skins. That would blow XBMC out of the water as far as customization is concerned.
Yes all of these things together are a large undertaking. But they could be broken down into smaller tasks. If implemented it would be the same as the monumental leaps in functionality that Red October, Carnac, Meta Data and CoverView were.
-
We have the 'tools' to build views in Standard view. We don't have enough tools for Theater View.
We don't want JRiver to build views for Theater View, we want a complete engine. We want that engine to rival the one in XBMC. We'll build the skins.
MC will forever have more data than XBMC and the likes because, between other things, it allows custom fields, intricate calculated fields and whatnot. MC has more information and more logical paths to follow at its core.
Matt and Jim summed this up well: They are not going to throw out the existing engine and it would be better if individual features were requested so they could be implemented in small chunks. Knowing this I (and others) asked for a fairly large feature (Cover View) and low and behold, it actually got implemented. And it was not a small change. What needs to happen further are requests for skin features that developers need to create better skins.
You held back or didn't know what's needed. I can think of various requests that will immediately put a question mark over the current engine. Font scaling with text reflow. Support for stacked layers with transparency. Controlled animation effects (slide, rotate, fade, etc) with conditional visibility. Not features that have 1 value - the stock value, but features that can be tweaked and stimulate creativity.
Creativity doesn't work out of the box. For each feature that works out of the box, creativity will jump out of a hypercube and smacks you over the head, just to make sure you pay attention. Design Gods FTW.
-
Being completely honest I cannot believe this old chestnut gets as much play as it does...
When I was young, I thought stretch limousines were the ultimate and I wanted to be driven around in one every day. Now, they're kitsch.
When I was young, I wore 3 gold earrings. Now, the only jewellery I wear is my wedding ring and that's white gold.
When I was younger I had blonde tips in my hair, now it's short back and sides.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I was 15, the eye candy that XBMC offers may appeal to me, but now, as an adult, give me something that's clean and provides me the information I want in a *simple*, *classy*, *understated* manner that doesn't take over the experience and lets me play the files I want to play without too much (if any in most cases) fuss and I'm happy. MC does this.
Bubble gum screens don't make my movies look any better or my music sound any better.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that if I was 15, the eye candy that XBMC offers may appeal to me, but now, as an adult, give me something that's clean and provides me the information I want in a *simple*, *classy*, *understated* manner that doesn't take over the experience and I'm happy. MC does this.
Okay, now I know at least one person agrees with me, I will participate in this otherwise tired, old debate. :D
I wish those flogging the 'not enough eye candy' argument would try to understand many of us see it as flawed circular logic. If MC is not ugly and does not suffer from lack of eye candy, then it follows there's nothing to fix. But the argument is repeated so frequently—without any concrete examples of what is meant by 'eye candy', I've been compelled to try out XBMC and the like. For the most part, what I've seen varies from tacky to nauseating. Trying extra hard, I did find some skins I considered nice in some respects, but they seemed to come at a price of much less flexibility than I'm accustomed to in MC. A pretty face on something that won't do what I want it to do doesn't help.
While they may seem to be independent aspects, I don't see any practical way to separate appearances and form from function in Theatre View. So this issue is closely related to others regarding flexibility, ease-of-use, out-of-the-box experience, etc. Some time ago I lost the argument Theatre View is an elegant design only needing a more user-friendly configuration system to be more accessible to users. Even though this does not preclude providing attractive and functional stock views in support of a positive out out-of-the-box experience, this notion seemed to fall on deaf ears. Much effort has been expended trying to make things work by themselves. Nothing has been done to make the configuration more functional and easier to use.
The position of most users and that clearly embraced by JRiver is, for whatever reason, users are unable and/or unwilling to determine what it is they want or to configure Theatre View to do whatever that is. In saying this, I'm not referring to the things it won't do or making any judgment about whether additional capabilities should be added. I'm only referring to making use of the simple, intuitive, elegant design that is the working guts of Theatre View. If it seems incredible I can describe it that way when a majority of users seem reluctant to configure it to suit their needs, I can only agree. Some users will go so far as to argue to the death they need a new feature, when what want can be done in seconds with a simple change to the configuration.
So what has this got to do with eye candy? This elegant system that is Theatre View can easily handle straightforward features that would change it's appearance in various ways—as long as users were willing to incorporate such things in their views according to their preferences. But they're not. Most want to use stock views they don't have to mess with, and expect them to magically behave and look just the way they think they should. Although JRiver has embraced this notion, they've no doubt discovered it's extremely difficult to maintain a fixed set of views that satisfies everyone. Adding new visual elements would just result in more dissatisfaction—because some want it, some don't and others insist on some variation or adaptation. Remember, options don't work very well for those unwilling to look at the configuration.
To illustrate the point...Many would like the ability to display icons or symbols in the place of words for attributes like file types, codecs, etc. Aside from the mechanics of how and where to display such images, this is a trivial feature in the context of the Theatre View system itself. All that's required is an expression function that maps values (i.e., words in a field) to images to be displayed in their place. Whoops, did I say 'expression'? Yes, way too complicated for those who don't even want to look at the configuration. Most users, it seems, don't even realize they can place whatever text they want anywhere in the existing file info panels. So this would have to something implemented in stock views in a way, once again, that satisfies most users and won't just result in a flood of questions and requests for changes.
So there's the irony. We don't see steady progress with incremental features (visual and otherwise) because most users insist on having something that 'just works' without them having to do anything. That doesn't stop JRiver from implementing something they believe is an improvement. But we the users have demonstrated over and over and over again we cannot agree on what that is. ::)
Hi glynor. You're the only one likely to have read this far, so I'll comment on your idea here. It sounds like a good one, but there seems to be a significant practical limitation. My views have evolved over a number of years during which I've never considered doing things in a way that will work for anyone be me. That's not to say the form of a particular view wouldn't be of interest to others, but that I've very likely created it using direct references to pathnames and custom fields. Then there's my use of PvdImport to supply all of my videos and most of my music albums with meta data, most of which is stored in custom fields. It's difficult to imagine how any configuration that shares any of these characteristics could be shared in a meaningful way. :-\
I'd be less pessimistic if there were an import/export mechanism for exchanging individual views in some sort of understandable and editable text format. I can imagine examining a view configuration in a text editor, making obvious wholesale changes to pathnames and fields, then importing the result. To the extent my changes were correct, I'd then be able to see my own data in the view.
-
I don't buy into needing a wonderfully flexible skinning system. I like theatre view and I don't think there are enough people here to take advantage of a super flexible system, you only need to look at the relatively limited number of theatre view skins out there at the moment. This is paid software and that fact tends to mean lazier middle aged men and not 18 year old hackers with time on their hands (this of course is pure conjecture).
Two very small examples come to mind when I think about eye candy (or lack thereof) and perhaps point to my occasional (and small) frustration I have with my MC outcome (please take this in context of a very happy customer)....
The theatre view caption: Very flexible, does what I want, but... I shouldn't have to hunt a forum for examples and need to construct a monster expression. The system is great, it is just the concept hasn't been finished, there is not a drop down list of examples for people to build from, there is not a link to a place on the wiki where people can access other users' examples, nor contribute on their own. This is an example where JRiver could put in an extra yard to make the outcome potentially a bit more sexy. Having a default view that has the required expressions or methods to show icons for the MPAA rating, image quality symbols (DVD, HD, BLURay, divX, etc), stars for ratings. I think there are other examples of this.
I very much like rick.ca and glynor's ideas of somehow being able to share what the best are doing in theatre view. This I would love. Harnessing everyone's efforts in serial is much better that us each inventing the wheel.
Season coverart: Artist coverart has been around for ages, then there was series art, and we waited another couple of months for season art (still not downloaded within MC, but was ok for me as I wrote a script to copy it from where sickbeard placed it) and I am sure fan art will get there soon enough. It is great to get access to progress as it is made, but equally it is frustrating when it seems like a relatively small step from artist to fan art but it takes a cycle. It is like some things aren't taken to their natural conclusion in one hit, it is piecemeal delivery. I am sure this is a function of developer time and not meant as a criticism.
As always, progress is being made, often at an amazing pace. We all just want something different (eg. I am sure the convolver stuff makes someone very happy but it is not me) and we all want it now :)
Craig
-
I have to throw my .02 in and it comes with what I would like to see which is eye candy but it is more about function than form.
I personally love Theater View with a couple of reservations, those being the rollers not fading or actually the rollers in general.
IMHO repeatedly hitting directional keys is a PITA.
Many modern day devices that have extensive menus use shortcut keys (0-9) for navigation so we don't wear out our directional arrows.
Theater View navigation is really nothing more than a giant fancy menu so why not implement a shortcut system similar to what you find in these devices.
My thought is to use the number pad 01-00 (2 numbers system 01 being 1 and 00 being 100) to launch items from a icon/thumb based GUI until you drill down
to single files and then the number pad would convert to a 9 button directional navigation device (4=L, 6=R, 8=U, 2=D, 7=LU, 9=RU, 1=LD, 3=RD 5=Enter/OK).
If you are in a section that accepts text input then the number pad would revert to a standard alpha-numeric pad.
This would obviously require a pagination system but I would think that would be fairly simple to implement given the complexity of what has already been implemented.
There is a bonus: No other software that I am aware of is doing something like this for navigation.
Home screen example styled to match my standard skin below, images taken from Rapier Fusion mod theme, numbers would not be overlaid but would instead be
automatically created to the left of the names.
You have your core user base of Audio/Videophiles, data managers and general tweekers that know that MC is the best for those things, it is now time to go after the users
that judge a book by it's cover by making it prettier.
Edit: Page selection could be done with directional keys (next/prev page, page up/down)
-
Rick, I want to thank you for a good and constructive replay. I think we actually agree more than anyone anticipated.
Over to some general comments...
Eye candy is something that is subject to personal opinions. For me, Eye candy is more about cover art, it's icons instead of text, alignment of text displayed, it's clever placement of UI elements. Not only transparent graphics thrown in here and there to make it all shiny. I'm not after just the flash, I'm looking for functionality and ease of use that things like these bring. But at the same time, it's important to also know that many people out there do get impressed by nice graphics. So it should not be all forgotten.
I think that the majority of the replays here shows that people have different opinions about what looks nice, and what is needed. But I think that most agrees that there could be relatively small things done to Theater View to make it shine even brighter, and that many more users would see what MC can be if certain things was easier for people to experiment with.
Struct has some very good examples of for example art and caption. Why not add the art that has bee asked for for so long? It's right there on the scraper target sites, ready to be grabbed. Season art, banners and backgrounds. We have the structure for it, so it should be pretty easy to download right? Captions could also be made much easier to make, so new users would get a better experience. Templates with views and different libraries for users to try out would be a great step for showing users the potential. As well as automatic download and test new Theater View skins from within Theater View. It would give a huge boost in usability and new user experience.
-
Ive read each and every post, ironically after posting my last post http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72058.0 on an issue(recently imported) I've yet to get resolved that i feel should just work. for some noobs like myself (and Ive used the software for years.) these types of views, should just work, and if we edit them they should be allowed to be saved forever no matter if we jump from 17 to version JRiver 70. I'm really diggen how far theaterview has come like many others here. and feel it could use alot more eye candy but all the while not forgetting about us "noobs" or less educated users, Just because jriver has10thousand features/tools doesn't mean EVEN after reading the wiki, forums that we understand how to use them, Ex. my link in this thread. I'm not exaggerating on the time I've spent trying to accomplish the task. And to be honest i don't get a big enjoyment having to come back and admit my ignorance.. and bugging others with "but but i don't get it."
you guys have seen the light and are using polls more often in 2012
start a poll. asking about these concerns to your noobs/new customers. I'm willing to bet. (I'll buy jriver a case of beer if I'm wrong.. I'll even drive it to ya chilled) that if you allow me to see the names of those voting, and I'm allowed to take out the 189 IQ guys from the polls voting (jriver affiliates, glynor, marko, jmone, carl, rickca, alexb, king sparta, scolex to name a few). your numbers would rise considerably on the confusion level/how high is jriver's learning curve poll category, Just from reading previous posts in this thread, I'm willing to bet pcstockton would be in the same poll bracket as myself... confused, given it his damnedest, and asking for help but yet still feeling lost. (I'm not speaking for you pcstockton, just gathering from reading in between the lines)
Poll suggestions how well do you understand expressions, views etc. how many of you would remember how to reset everything back up if there were a crash, how many would even bother going through all those settings, views again.how many wives GF's would allow there men to take all that time resetting everything up if it were all lost. . (standard views, theaterviews, rules, expressions)
make recently imported just work (like Rick's view I'm working on.)
make artist works as artistS(Tick boxes) so your noobs can select multiple artists for a song, and not have to worry about in the future how to use the tools that could potentially wipe out there library to switch over artist to artistS
make genre work like keywords(Tick boxes) "same as above"
all these little things confuse, and make jriver very unpleasant to deal with ... I'm not implying there's a better product, only stating that these things would make ones life easier. all these things i speak of aren't just problems for me in standard view. these are issues for me on all the other awesome features jriver has to offer(gizmo, theaterview, webgizmo), like i mentioned in post above. if i can FIGURE out this recently imported. my recently imported battle is far from over. i still need to tackle recently imported for theaterview, and gizmo so those look how i want/need them to look.
I do want to say thanks to those who have helped me in the past and continue to so i can learn and set this up the best way my family will enjoy it. thanks for all those screenshots. if it weren't for those. I'd be done for.
i guess to sum my thoughts up... I'd like to just see things work easier, so that i can spend more time enjoying, and not fixing or tweaking, and once tweaked, know that job is done for good.
and above all not have drastic changes be made. again i bring up the artist - artistS issue. artist should allow for multiple values. now we have ability to add multiple artists to artist. but yet we cannot tick the boxes, we have to know code by using Ozzy osbourne;lita ford and if we don't know how the artist is spelt, then jriver does not bring up suggestions like it does with artistS which then makes More work for us noobs. So what noobs do, we take the easy way out. and stay with the old KNOWN way artistS,and keywords, instead of artist and genre.. all the while jriver moves forward with new features, get info, etc but yet we cannot use them to there fullest because we are not using the default view. example get info. thing works great. but when you hit save info it fills in all genres with what they SHOULD be from the internet, but noobs like me having been using custom categories for years. example, kids & family. well there is no genre downloaded named kids and family, it's family. same with adventure, crime, thriller. i don't have any of those as choice for my keywords. i use action, drama, horror, horror pre 1960, disturbing and utterly strange. etc... and then due to the fact I'm using keywords get info fills in keywords with what it's supposed to, example usual suspects movie, foreign film, murder, knife, fire blah blah.. well that messes up our whole library because this whole time we've been using keywords as our genres, because ticking isn't available and there is no possible way we can remember all of our custom genres (keywords, disturbing and utterly strange, classic movies, horror pre-1960 etc..) . so now when family goes to theaterview expecting to see 10-20 genres under keywords, they see 500 keywords with knife, fire, rope, tied up, foreign...So I'm stuck having to use get info, look at the tag for genre, CHOSE which tags to use for keywords, copy those tags by using ctrl c then delete all the keywords that get info puts in keywords, then paste those from genre, then move/copy keywords over to genre. it's a major pain, when all that would need to be done would be to make genre and artist work identically to artistS and keywords. then give us long time users a safe explanation on how to move from artistS/keywords to artist/genre.
i hope I'm making some sense on how frustrating this can be(this is just a couple explanations that are extremely frustrating for someone less savvy then you 189's.
i sincerely hope I'm not the only one that feels this way, or experiences these types of things, for then i will feel like a bigger idiot then i already do when i post these topics here.
-
another quick point.. on how things change for the better for you 189's and for the worst for regular users.. cover arts. the new cover art system looks awesome, ads thumbs to episodes, pulls the covers from get info, and names them properly..but ive been doing folder.jpg for eons(because thats what i was told here was the best thing to do).. and i still don't have this issue resolved... I feel many new users, and long time users that dont have time to research all these changes get left in the dust - (issue still unresolved on my end) http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=71811.new;topicseen#new these changes i admit are for the better for jriver as a whole, but that doesnt mean some of us arent hesitant, or utterly confused on where to move things, what will and will not happen, will we wipe out years of manual tagging, playlists, covers, what about those of us that have multiple media drives, movies 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and those drives have 1GIG or less on them? what about us that have SSD drives for our Os's. with the new system implemented will these cover arts fill up our ssd's?
Another new feature.... jriver's awesome streaming converting... those of us that have ssd's are our OS's going to get full? where do those get converted to, can those be changed? is that a registry tweak like thumbnails are, Or use to be? unsure if it's still needed but i tweaked my registry to move all folder.jpgs to D drive because in the past it filled up my os drive... what all needs to be backed up? where should all these things be backed up? where does one look to find the locations of all things needed for there libraries when reformating? all these things take time away from the user, and bring in confusion
these are important concerns for us less advanced people.. Honestly here's alegit question.. If one has large libraries to save frustration in long run should one just buy a 3 tera drive, and save everything related to jriver to that drive? would that work? would that be enough? what's the ratio? say 20 1 tera drives, how big or how many tera drives are needed for the new conversion feature, would a system crash, reinstall be less troublesome?
I just would like easy peazy, and major things to work, and not change drastically to the point where i'm dumbfounded.
-
3. Setting up the View part is difficult for new users. In addition most don't even know it exists.
I would agree with this wholeheartedly. I think that it is a mistake to have Theater view's view customization in the Application's options. I really think it ought to be configurable as an item in the tree in Standard view. Then we'd have the whole resolution of the right hand pane to customize the views.
-
If it's important, others will take up the cause.
So I think now others indeed took up the cause...
-
I think there are a couple of things that everyone seems to agree on:
1. "Eye candy" doesn't necessarily mean skins. Many users are not familiar with the fact that form and function are separated in Theater View. The "eye candy" can be had if only they new how to do it. Most don't bother are it means a long process of scouring the forum and wiki and a whole bunch of trial and error. This is preventing many of the average users from getting what they want from Theater View.
2. What is needed is somewhere where users can find examples of these forms and functions (skins, views, info panel configs), to get what they want.
That would lay a lot of the eye candy complaints to rest. And they are not really even about changes to skinning etc, but more about finding how to accomplish what they want. Having a repository for these examples and having that available from Theater View itself would be a huge benefit to many users.
-
I think there are a couple of things that everyone seems to agree on:
1. "Eye candy" doesn't necessarily mean skins. Many users are not familiar with the fact that form and function are separated in Theater View. The "eye candy" can be had if only they new how to do it. Most don't bother are it means a long process of scouring the forum and wiki and a whole bunch of trial and error. This is preventing many of the average users from getting what they want from Theater View.
2. What is needed is somewhere where users can find examples of these forms and functions (skins, views, info panel configs), to get what they want.
That would lay a lot of the eye candy complaints to rest. And they are not really even about changes to skinning etc, but more about finding how to accomplish what they want. Having a repository for these examples and having that available from Theater View itself would be a huge benefit to many users.
+1
I have been using MC for a few years now. Started out just using it for music because of the high SQ. Now using it for all Video except TV recording.
This Eye Candy thing is so relative: I came from Sage TV which is totally text based, but very functional. It had several years to evolve as an incredibly powerful PVR. Boring to use, but it works fantastically well. So from my perspective the present Theater View is a thing of beauty. But I can understand people coming from something as flashy as XMBC would see it differently.
Even though I've been using MC for a few years I have avoided doing anything with Expressions and any but the most basic view changes. I'm just not interested in spending the time and effort to learn some of the more complex stuff. (Sorry Rick & Mr. C) I may be missing a lot of the great stuff that MC can do but I basically want a Player/Organizer to enjoy my Media with, not to be a database/view designer/manager. My hunch is that many if not most users fall in this category, especially newer users.
So for me having a repository of easy to use Views is very appealing. Thanks a lot for your offer Glynor.
Great thread BTW!
Rod
-
+1
I have been using MC for a few years now... Now using it for all Video except TV recording...
Even though I've been using MC for a few years I have avoided doing anything with Expressions and any but the most basic view changes. I'm just not interested in spending the time and effort to learn some of the more complex stuff. (Sorry Rick & Mr. C) I may be missing a lot of the great stuff that MC can do but I basically want a Player/Organizer to enjoy my Media with, not to be a database/view designer/manager. My hunch is that many if not most users fall in this category, especially newer users.
So for me having a repository of easy to use Views is very appealing. Thanks a lot for your offer Glynor.
Great thread BTW!
+1
I wrote the following as part of an overall client/server thread, but this still applies to this thread, where there seems to an awful lot on consensus happening. Much can be done with MC, many don't want to invest the time to maximize that.
Profile or User – This is a users individual, customizable interface to the system’s Media Server - these things can optionally be shared with other users/profiles
• View Schemes
• Playlists & Smartlists
• Ratings
• Tags and their settings (defaults to Media Server settings, but can be adjusted)
• Playback settings (gapless, level adjusted, etc, default to Media Server settings, but changable)
• Playback stats
• Visualization settings
• Handheld settings should probably go here, as they typically “belong” to a user, so are an extension of them and their playlists and preferences
• Custom library fields should be setup here
• Podcasts are setup and managed here, but are stored on the Media Server and available to other users
• TV can be viewed live*** or recorded, programs can be set up to record and deleted from here (deletions might need other users to “allow” deletions, to avoid fights)
*** This is true no matter where the actual tuner is installed, as long as that device is connected to the Media Server
-
Hi glynor. You're the only one likely to have read this far, so I'll comment on your idea here. It sounds like a good one, but there seems to be a significant practical limitation. My views have evolved over a number of years during which I've never considered doing things in a way that will work for anyone be me. That's not to say the form of a particular view wouldn't be of interest to others, but that I've very likely created it using direct references to pathnames and custom fields. Then there's my use of PvdImport to supply all of my videos and most of my music albums with meta data, most of which is stored in custom fields. It's difficult to imagine how any configuration that shares any of these characteristics could be shared in a meaningful way. :-\
I'd be less pessimistic if there were an import/export mechanism for exchanging individual views in some sort of understandable and editable text format.
Hah! I was reading that far. ;)
Yeah, I know. I've thought about some of it though. Custom Fields themselves will come over, if when creating the backup we leave a set of example files in the database. The example files will be broken, of course, when another user restores the library, but they can serve as a roadmap to the organization system used in the Library (if chosen thoughtfully).
Of course, if you base a bunch of views on Filesystem paths, then those views won't work. I, personally, only have one or two of those in my library, and those rules were just added as "hacks" to prevent certain undesirable files from showing up in a particular view because I am too lazy to tag them (and in all of those cases, there is another tag-based mechanism that I could use to exclude the same files). An example in my Library is what I call "Desktop Theme Assets" (wallpaper, sound themes, icons, etc). I have that stuff imported, and I have a view set up for them. I can tag them as Desktop files and they'll be included in that view, and excluded from a bunch of my other views. But usually I'm too lazy and so I just also filter out the M:\Desktop directory in a bunch of my views, which is where all that stuff lives.
I can leave that in when I make the backup, and just include a note about it in the documentation, or I might delete the rule to avoid confusion. I'm not sure. Most people probably don't import that stuff, since it lives in the Windows directory by default. I just have my own collection, and I use MC to manage it.
But, you're right, of course. A really complex system that relies on a bunch of external software might not be very useful to others. But, if you're willing to document it all, then... ;)
Obviously, a way to export out single-views (both Standard and Theater) to a file on disk would be awesome. That would be a much simpler mechanism to exchange these. But, I think that might be even MORE broken in some ways (ease-of-use wise) since you don't get the benefit of being able to include those "phantom" example files, and see how Playlists and Views interact. It would still be nice for some uses, but some complex views really weave into the entire Library.
In any case, we can do this now with the system we have, and I figure it is worth doing. If others feel like prepping and posting theirs too, I'll host them.
-
I guess what I'm saying is that if I was 15, the eye candy that XBMC offers may appeal to me, but now, as an adult, give me something that's clean and provides me the information I want in a *simple*, *classy*, *understated* manner that doesn't take over the experience and lets me play the files I want to play without too much (if any in most cases) fuss and I'm happy. MC does this.
Bubble gum screens don't make my movies look any better or my music sound any better.
Totally agree.
I think there are a couple of things that everyone seems to agree on:
1. "Eye candy" doesn't necessarily mean skins. Many users are not familiar with the fact that form and function are separated in Theater View. The "eye candy" can be had if only they new how to do it. Most don't bother are it means a long process of scouring the forum and wiki and a whole bunch of trial and error. This is preventing many of the average users from getting what they want from Theater View.
2. What is needed is somewhere where users can find examples of these forms and functions (skins, views, info panel configs), to get what they want.
That would lay a lot of the eye candy complaints to rest. And they are not really even about changes to skinning etc, but more about finding how to accomplish what they want. Having a repository for these examples and having that available from Theater View itself would be a huge benefit to many users.
I agree here as well. I think the biggest problem is documentation and examples.
-
Obviously, a way to export out single-views (both Standard and Theater) to a file on disk would be awesome. That would be a much simpler mechanism to exchange these.
It's not just a matter of exchanging working views. Think how this would work with the idea you've suggested. If you were to download and import one of my views, it's extremely unlikely it would work for you. But you've got the screenshot—that, along with a description of what it does, is probably why you're looking at it. While it won't work for your library, you've got the text configuration, which to your trained eye may tell you exactly how it works and how it needs to be modified. The mere mortal would be able to look at the configuration in the UI, which they would find easier to understand and modify. Again, it wouldn't work, but they'd have a fair chance to make the changes necessary to make it conform to their own library. At the very worse, they would probably learn some techniques and feel more comfortable building their our view from scratch—keeping the imported one for comparison until it's done.
The main drawback to this piecemeal approach (i.e., exchanging individual views, rather than the entire configuration) is it wouldn't include the captions or file info templates. But I suppose those can be included separately (the templates can already be exported/imported as text) in a demo package. The recipient may not want to use them anyway, if they're happy with their own configuration of those elements. And they can always get an idea of what they do from the screenshot(s).
-
Can someone please point me towards a video (?YouTube) of what they consider to be eye candy, because I just don't 'get it'.
SBR
-
Can someone please point me towards a video (?YouTube) of what they consider to be eye candy, because I just don't 'get it'.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=63191.msg424874#msg424874
-
Try a search on Youtube for: xbmc aeon nox
-
tls62dk - I have to admit I liked what I saw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDuzobqPq4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDuzobqPq4))
Question - how much time (on average) does it take to build a theater view skin? What skills are needed?
If the amount of time was reduced and the skills were in reach of the average user (I don't know what they are so maybe this isn't going to happen) would the MC community more often produce skins that work for the wide spectrum of users (eg, simple/spartan all the way up to space shuttle cockpit info overload)?
The point I am trying to make here is instead of asking J River for each persons flavor of theater view maybe we should be asking for tools to open skinning to a broader group with the goal of getting more skins created?
I also like the points raised about making skins more discoverable and the setting up a +1 / LIKE feature.
My $.02 - FastKayak / Larry
-
I like it too. I don't know much about XBMC, I have tried it a couple of times but quickly gave up. It wasn't so much the skin giving me problems, but more getting XBMC to play and recognize my media. The media it recognized did however look great. I have been using MC for many years and is not about to change to something else, but I could be a little jealous on the XBMC users for skins like that.
-
I to would love to see skins like some of those available
for XBMC or Media Portal.
But I also think it must be hard for the developers as where to start
as there are really no one who makes skin with the tools we have today.
One thing I dont like with a lot of the skins for XBMC, is that the menu
is build with pictures or photoshoped text,as this looks very nice and impresiv,
it is also hard to add your own menu-point, as you will have to make an image in
photoshop to go along with it.
I had a thougt though, maybe if anyone is interested, I would like to start a group
of 3 - 4 users, and then start make a skin.
If we on the way hit a bump as of what is possible, then try to ask the developers
to make it possible.
This way, in a group, we are likely to hit something that a lot of users would like.
Thomas
-
I see this as being one problem why is it not used.
-
+1
I have been using MC for a few years now. Started out just using it for music because of the high SQ. Now using it for all Video except TV recording.
This Eye Candy thing is so relative: I came from Sage TV which is totally text based, but very functional. It had several years to evolve as an incredibly powerful PVR. Boring to use, but it works fantastically well. So from my perspective the present Theater View is a thing of beauty. But I can understand people coming from something as flashy as XMBC would see it differently.
Even though I've been using MC for a few years I have avoided doing anything with Expressions and any but the most basic view changes. I'm just not interested in spending the time and effort to learn some of the more complex stuff. (Sorry Rick & Mr. C) I may be missing a lot of the great stuff that MC can do but I basically want a Player/Organizer to enjoy my Media with, not to be a database/view designer/manager. My hunch is that many if not most users fall in this category, especially newer users.
So for me having a repository of easy to use Views is very appealing. Thanks a lot for your offer Glynor.
Great thread BTW!
Rod
Rod,
This is a great post. I agree with almost 100% of what was said. Now coming from XBMC good looking skins (Eye Candy) would be expected. However, some of the smaller things would have made the trasition a little better ie.. In Theater View - TV shows > Seasons = Season 1, Season 2, Season 3 and so on instead of 1, 2, 3. I know you can MAKE it look like this. But this is just expected = coming from XBMC. The episodes = saying Episode 1 - name of episode with a description along with fanart ofcourse.
This is all about the looks of Theater View in MC not the functionality. It's not about what we can and can't do in MC. It's just about the look of the skins and the lack of skins we have in theater View. That's it. No way - please don't mess with the functionality of JR. But please improve the Theater view skins and add more Theater view skin choices.
Thank you xplain - for giving us more Theater View skin choices - Which did nothing to remove any of the functionality JR has.
Better Theater View Skins - That's it.
-
Is there a reason for disabling options (ctrl+0) in Theater View?
Being able to access options without leaving Theater View would help when making changes.
An apply button in options so you can see changes before leaving would be nice also.
-
tls62dk - I have to admit I liked what I saw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDuzobqPq4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDuzobqPq4))
I think the TV Tunes plug in is a great idea. Could be cool to have the theme tune playing (at suitable volume) while browsing for a show to watch in Theater View.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HDuzobqPq4)
You have to be honest. I know you like this video. The question is. How can JRiver have skins in Theater View that look the part?
-
Is there a reason for disabling options (ctrl+0) in Theater View?
Being able to access options without leaving Theater View would help when making changes.
I think because it can't be accessed easily with a remote.
Which brings up another point. One thing a really dislike about Theater View is it is designed to be be accessed without the Enter or Select key. Of course there are those that love this (Matt for example) so it is a matter of taste. However I find it really slow and difficult to navigate using that design with OSD. Selecting audio track for example is always a chore. I find most users I give the remote to, confused when first using it because they expect to select using the age old design of Enter/Select. Just about every other UI uses it, so they are uncomfortable using it.
In addition I believe it really limits what can be displayed and used and is not intuitive. For example most of the OSD things shown in the XBMC video shown can't be done with this design. A simple VCR control with the play stop ff rw buttons can't be done because it would require pressing enter. I think this is sad loss. While the experts like many of us here find the current OSD wonderful, I think it is ignoring new users or converts.
It would really be a good thing if "regular" navigation type OSD could be enabled with more elaborate controls etc. Once again, this is the kind of "eye candy" that isn't really about visuals at all. It is about functionality, access to information and ease of use.
-
One thing I really dislike about Theater View is it is designed to be be accessed without the Enter or Select key. Of course there are those that love this (Matt for example) so it is a matter of taste. However I find it really slow and difficult to navigate using that design with OSD. Selecting audio track for example is always a chore. I find most users I give the remote to, confused when first using it because they expect to select using the age old design of Enter/Select. Just about every other UI uses it, so they are uncomfortable using it.
I'm confused. Enter works in Theater View and it's used a lot of places.
Why don't you start a thread with an example of what you expect and what MC needs.
-
Is there a reason for disabling options (ctrl+0) in Theater View?
Being able to access options without leaving Theater View would help when making changes.
An apply button in options so you can see changes before leaving would be nice also.
The dialog can be called using a hotkey for MCC 30012. Changes will only be effective when Theatre View is restarted, but it can be handy to make changes while the view being changing is in the background.
-
gvan
I agree completely on the navigation I find it to be slow which is why I suggested an alternate mode of selecting items. (Reply 20)
Obviously I am biased but I thought it was a very good idea but it didn't get a single comment.
After I finished the post I came up with a few thing that I would change to add some additional functionality but what is the point
if nobody likes the base idea enough to comment.
-
The dialog can be called using a hotkey for MCC 30012. Changes will only be effective when Theatre View is restarted, but it can be handy to make changes while the view being changing is in the background.
Thanks will add it to my ever growing list of hotkeys.
-
After I finished the post I came up with a few thing that I would change to add some additional functionality but what is the point if nobody likes the base idea enough to comment.
Sorry, but it's just to difficult to discuss one person's idea in a thread like this. The topic is vague. We haven't even decided what 'eye candy' means. I'm convinced it's meaningless and not a sound basis for productive discussion, which is probably why is was chosen. So everyone's looking at the 'topic' from a different angle, each of which should probably be a separate topic. But if you'd like feedback...
I don't like the number pad navigation part. The four-button navigation system works very well. The brain power required to train the fingers to hit the right buttons is imperceptible. And the actions taken by various button presses is reasonable consistent throughout the UI. So even those who might argue those are illogical in a few cases, it takes very little effort to program the brain to accept 'that's just how it is'. That's why these things work, not because each action is the 'best' or 'most logical' in a particular circumstance. In short, unless there's some compelling need for my conscious mind to be engaged in the navigation, I'd much rather my thumb made the decision. I suppose the same could be said for hitting '7' to move up and left, but using a tiny number pad instead of the direction keys is a non-starter. The current system does require an extra button press here and there, but that's made up for many times over by the speed that's made possible by it's simplicity and consistency.
Although it makes little difference to me, I can see how the grid of images thing would work well as a menu while adding some visual appeal. I don't think the fact it may take two or three button presses rather than one or two to move to another item makes any difference—especially if <left> and <right> scrolled through all items. And it seems to be the sort of thing that could be introduced as an optional form for the main and secondary menus without a huge amount of development effort or a completely different skin.
-
You guys are drifting. I'll go back to eye candy and try to explain what and why I don't like about the current situations. These are all pretty much stock skins and views and I hope I didn't mess them up with my various attempts to change one thing or another, and they are representative.
(http://thumbnails7.imagebam.com/19012/26e43c190115880.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/26e43c190115880) (http://thumbnails71.imagebam.com/19012/a6286c190115893.jpg) (http://www.imagebam.com/image/a6286c190115893)
Left screenshot, focus on Green Lantern. Where's my fanart/background? Let's wait it's supposed to come from the cloud. Waiting... waiting... nothing happens. OK I'm not gonna get it. Let's move left to Great Expectations (the 1988 version). That's the wrong background. Mmmyeah... me being a new user (supposedly) what do I think? This thing is kinda broken. Moving on.
Let's suppose I move one down to The Guns Of Navarone. It takes 5 seconds to get a background with it's slow fade in and all that. If I already have it (moving away and back to Guns...) it obviously shows faster but in the realm of 1 second with its slow fade in. If I lock the nav key down how many items do i scroll in one second? That display style will never be able to keep up. Does anybody wants to see how those things move in XBMC? (all things being equal, SSD and all)
Pushing forward. Who do I know stuff about the movie I stopped at. Well it's on the right. Forgive me, I'm gonna dismantle it.
The Cover:
- it still pulsates when it finally display full quality.
- it has a style with a rough, 'brick-like' extrusion that makes it worth it of Wolfenstein 3D circa 1994. No transparency, no layers, no "watched" sign, no immediate giveaway if it's a DVD/Blu-Ray/broadcast source, etc. It's shadow is too long and actually makes it even more difficult to read the text below it.
The metadata text. Let's look at its style. Here (with text) it's shown more than ever that this interface is made of borderless, frameless parts. I would like to know what school of design advises that such a feature makes things easy to read??? Look at the first pic, down to the bottom right. MPAA rating PG-13. Keywords: Ring and... and...? Spacecraft maybe? WHERE on God's green Earth is that a good style choice to write stuff to the last pixel of the edge?
Let's pull back a few inches and look at the whole screen.
The covers seem like squares plastered over whatever happens to be behind them. Nothing makes anything to stand out. No dimming, no extra settings. There is no subtlety, no visual aids. That's what we want and it's not here. Subtlety, finesse. Design class. WHEN?
-
This is all about the looks of Theater View in MC not the functionality. It's not about what we can and can't do in MC. It's just about the look of the skins and the lack of skins we have in theater View. That's it. No way - please don't mess with the functionality of JR. But please improve the Theater view skins and add more Theater view skin choices.
I don't think it's possible to make that distinction. Consider the XBMC video offered as an example of something with more 'eye candy'. As xplain points out, much of that is accomplished with techniques that require the loss of flexibility and function. The narrator of that video was fond of saying things like, "...and here you'll find everything you might want to know about...". But, clearly, to the MC user, it does not. It presents a fixed set of fields (likely stock, but I'm not sure; certainly not expressions) in a fixed space. With custom graphics. A fixed number of view variations (Genre, Year, Actor, etc.) apparently designed according to what the skin designer think users need. I don't think that compares favourably to an unlimited number of views configured any way you want or one view that incorporates all those views. Another example: The 'Last 5 Movies Added' view. What's with that? What if I tend to import 10 movies at a time? If that view is useless, what do I replace it with?
So, yes, I wholeheartedly agree any improvements to the appearance of Theatre View must not be done at the expense of function and it's inherent flexibility. But doing that with different skins is easier said than done. It seems XBMC skins are of little help in suggesting a practical way to do it. I suppose a different skin engine might increase the number of user contributed skins, but MC has nothing like the XBMC user base. Skins can also be modified by users, but that's not going to be of any use. We have an apparent majority of users who can't even be bothered to use the current configuration system. Despite it's shortcomings, however, it's far more accessible and easy to use than modifying a skin would be.
I believe the only viable path to a Theatre View with more 'eye candy' is one which make the configuration system easier to use, encourages users to use it to get whatever result it is they want, and facilitates the exchange of view configurations so users can better assist one another. In that environment, it would be much easier for users to ask for, the developers to provide, and then users implement new features that would add to the visual appeal of Theatre View. A simple example I've mentioned before: A mechanism for associating icons or logos with the values of any field, and display those instead of the words (for things like file types, codecs, etc.). I suspect the developers would be happy to provide that basic functionality—if they didn't also have to feel responsible for building it into stocks views based on stock fields populated by stock values—in a way that pleased everyone. If we had the basic functionality and a more user-friendly configuration system, many users would be happy helping each other implement such a feature in their views.
-
As per Jims request on my earlier post I started a new thread here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72150.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72150.0)
I believe the only viable path to a Theatre View with more 'eye candy' is one which make the configuration system easier to use, encourages users to use it to get whatever result it is they want, and facilitates the exchange of view configurations so users can better assist one another.
Exactly it. I think almost all of the people I see going to XBMC after trying MC do so because to "configure" XBMC all one has to do is select a skin. It changes form and function to something close to what they want. MC has many more options for configuring it, but it is not easily accessible to the average user. Heck many things are not even easily accessible to the expert user for some things. :) I know there are many times someone mentions some way of accomplishing things in a thread and I think "darn, why didn't I think of that before?"
-
We have an apparent majority of users who can't even be bothered to use the current configuration system. Despite it's shortcomings, however, it's far more accessible and easy to use than modifying a skin would be.
There isn't a configuration system unless you are simply referring to what is available in options.
What is available in options is more about setting up parent pages and their children and has nothing to do with the actual layout.
The skinning system (xml) could possibly do all kinds of things if there were a place to get information on what can and can not be done.
The wiki is very limited and some of what is there isn't even in any of the stock views so we could see a working example and tweak it.
For instance I would like to alter the PIP (picture in picture) that is mentioned in the wiki but I searched all available Theater View xml files and there is not a single PIP entry to use for reference so I don't even know where to place it.
There are many things that I would like to change and would if there were information available.
Just a few: Set number of columns/rows, determine vertical/horizontal scrolling (overflow), set thumbnail size, change the placement of the PIP, size individual info blocks (lyrics) and what their overflow behavior is (hidden, scroll, popout), etc.
I believe the only viable path to a Theatre View with more 'eye candy' is one which make the configuration system easier to use, encourages users to use it to get whatever result it is they want, and facilitates the exchange of view configurations so users can better assist one another. In that environment, it would be much easier for users to ask for, the developers to provide, and then users implement new features that would add to the visual appeal of Theatre View. A simple example I've mentioned before: A mechanism for associating icons or logos with the values of any field, and display those instead of the words (for things like file types, codecs, etc.). I suspect the developers would be happy to provide that basic functionality—if they didn't also have to feel responsible for building it into stocks views based on stock fields populated by stock values—in a way that pleased everyone. If we had the basic functionality and a more user-friendly configuration system, many users would be happy helping each other implement such a feature in their views.
This I completely agree with as long as, when new features are implemented an example of how to implement it is given.
Maybe have a wiki page that is nothing more than an example of a complete xml file that is kept up to date as enhancements come along.
-
I assume that Jim's point of reposting the original comment into a new thread was to ascertain if we thought more should be done. There is no doubt that much has been done, that we all think on the balance of things, that MC is still the best. But should more be done in improving GUI/candy (I use this term on purpose to avoid defining what is an improvement)... I think yes.
Or are you after little ideas that "appear" easy to implement and avoid getting a "messy" interface and improve the candiness of the presentation, eg, where fanart might be used, where Bluray symbols might go?
I hope that you are after ideas for the latter. For it would worry me a little if we had to choose between "substance" and look. Both are important, and having one does not substitute for the other. I like the idea of substance, it appeals to the engineer in me, but it isn't everything. eg I like MadVR, but I also want fanart in a TV Series view and I find it very hard to say which is most important on my older plasma screen. Further, when it comes to movies and TV, look is proportionally more important than substance compared with the audio world (where you may have 50,000 tracks that really need management). The substance of the movie exists, it resides in a directory called Movies and for many that list is not too long; very easy and robust ways to play it also exist, VLC, MPC-HC; what you go to MC for is the eye candy. Stop improving this aspect and you will probably not get all the video customers you could.
Craig
-
For instance I would like to alter the PIP (picture in picture) that is mentioned in the wiki but I searched all available Theater View xml files and there is not a single PIP entry to use for reference so I don't even know where to place it.
I have tried to build in the PIP in the skins, but this function is broking :'(.
It presents a fixed set of fields (likely stock, but I'm not sure; certainly not expressions) in a fixed space. With custom graphics. A fixed number of view variations (Genre, Year, Actor, etc.) apparently designed according to what the skin designer think users need. I don't think that compares favourably to an unlimited number of views configured any way you want or one view that incorporates all those views. Another example: The 'Last 5 Movies Added' view. What's with that? What if I tend to import 10 movies at a time? If that view is useless, what do I replace it with?
Exactly my thoughts, just didn't know how to write it.
I think we need a system, that makes instaling a skin and theme to Theater View, as easy
as it is for standard view (View - skins - skin manager - download skins).
As for designing skins it would be nice if we could drag out things
to frontpage from the underlying menu, make PIP work again,
and have the option to control the rollersystem a bit more (Size - font - lock it, so it dosn't change position according to zoom - )
Some animation options for both menu and background, and control for the animation,
ex. control how fast the backdrop fades in and out on frontpage.
And propably other things a can't think of right now.
Thomas
-
I too wish JRiver would improve it's theater view headend as well but for now I use XBMC as my "headend" software and JRiver as my "organization" software, nothing wrong with either of them.
I am not sure that one can combine the two, they are kind of different beasts, I use JRiver to import all my media, tag and organize it, I use XBMC on my HDTV's to present it throughout my house, seems normal to me.
TC :)
-
If we were able to export single views to a file to share with others (Which would probably be better than sharing a whole configuration)
I think the file would also have to contain any custom fields and the calculated data (if any), so that the view would not be broken when another user imports it (Assuming they don't contain anything to do with directories)
MC would just have to flag up conflicts, if when a user imports the file, if they allready have the same field required but with different calculated data.
MC could then ask to replace the calculated data or add a new field with the same name but with a number at the end and automatically append the rest of the import file where that field shows up.
It would be much easier for someone to document single views and tell new users what metadata and such is needed for it to run correctly.
-
I don't think J River should put their efforts in make more eye candy, they should leave that to the community.
Make Theater View easier to skin and customize and the eye candy will probably turn up automatically.
The more flexible and extensive J River can make the interface between the back end and the presentation layer, the less they have to focus on stuff like visuals.
Personally I don't care if it's a single large xml-file or a complete gui, just make as many attributes of it as possible accessible and dynamic. :)
-
One other thought I had. If the repositories of Skins, Views etc ever get created by JRiver, it would be good to allow designers to package them up in a single "Theme" etc. For example it would contain skins, views, configuration settings etc. This would be equivalent to what most users think of a skin. It would make it easy for a user to select one thing and have everything setup they way it is in other software while still maintaining the flexibility of the existing system.
-
One other thought I had. If the repositories of Skins, Views etc ever get created by JRiver, it would be good to allow designers to package them up in a single "Theme" etc. For example it would contain skins, views, configuration settings etc. This would be equivalent to what most users think of a skin. It would make it easy for a user to select one thing and have everything setup they way it is in other software while still maintaining the flexibility of the existing system.
I had the same thought, but I dumped the idea again,
because if users have set up a lot of different custom things in
theater view, and then all there settings would be lost
with the change of a skin.
But it would be nice if you could set some of the options to a default level
in the skin file, like, theme, size, font, Image/video mix amount, background.
Users would after the install of the skin still have option to change these thing,
but there would be a default setting packed with the skin.
Thomas
-
Ideally, the system will result in the sharing party being told "This field is non-standard, would you like to explain it?" when creating their skin/suit/package.
This would let those inclined to share their complex/custom work have the simple ability to help others to recreate it.
"This field parses the data from these, and presents it in these places. To recreate/use, just make sure your data is formatted like this..."
As long as all custom fields can be shared (without the need for some data being included), this gives others some insight into what something is designed to do, and how to recreate.
Eventually, some great views and skins will be revealed, and the standard items offers can be amended to use some of these ideas.
I don't think JRiver should spend much/any time trying to 'pretty up' MC, but instead reconsider the default presentation of some things (ever looked at the default images views in Gizmo?), and the data likely to be present on a users system. now that we have much more automatic metadata, more can/should be used in the default views/schemes. This alone will do wonders for the brand new user. If their current data was just presented in a more usable, appealing fashion. There are many examples of this, but this isn't the thread for them, IMO.
I've seen many requests for things that would make skinning easier, but since I don't skin, I've not paid that much attention. However, the time JRiver does NOT spend on 'prettiness', and instead spends on enhancing the tools and system to allow others to share, will result in at least a 10-fold return in prettiness, based on the number of people that seem willing to invest their time on skins, views and expressions, but lack better tools to leverage that by more easily sharing.
In summary, make making 'eye candy' easier, let others make 'eye candy'.
-
I had the same thought, but I dumped the idea again,
because if users have set up a lot of different custom things in
theater view, and then all there settings would be lost
with the change of a skin.
I agree. I wasn't really clear, but the person installing should be able to choose what major parts to apply. Ideally MC would keep track of a users previous settings/views etc as well so you could "bring them back". Shouldn't be that hard to do as that would just be saved as yet another "package".
-
In summary, make making 'eye candy' easier, let others make 'eye candy'.
I like this idea a lot.
-
...I'm going to post a special "cleared" version of my Library Backup (no assets included, tweaked to remove some things that are specific to my filesystem setup or whatever). People can then download the ZIP, make a new blank library, and restore the backup to try it out with their own files on their own system...Then, we can all mine them for ideas and JRiver can look for some simple, clean ideas that might be applicable to the stock views...
I know you've been busy lately, and I suspect you currently might be taking a newly created Monk to hunt Diablo, and may not be back here for days.
But...since Newegg chose to ship my pre-order via regular UPS, and it won't be here until tomorrow :( :( :( I just wanted to bump this and say that I VERY MUCH still want to see your library and views setup. I'd like to see those of several others also, and have wanted this for about a decade ;)
So, when (if?) you get some free time, please just know that your efforts on this will be appreciated, whenever it might be.
*As will the inevitable killing of The Devil, for the third time :)
-
I think the file would also have to contain any custom fields and the calculated data (if any), so that the view would not be broken when another user imports it...
I don't think it reasonable to expect the program (or some configuration export/import routine) do anything very helpful in making a configuration work in a different library. Adding someone else's custom fields would just make a mess of the library and not help in deciding what should be done with them. But this doesn't mean sharing configurations wouldn't be helpful.
For this sort of thing, there's no substitute for the user's judgment on things like whether a field needs to be changed to a similar one in the host library, changed to an expression, or deleted because the data isn't available. Out of necessity, those of us who use many custom fields will have our way of ensuring the names are reasonably descriptive and distinguishable from standard fields. My way of doing so is very likely different from yours. You will therefore find it easy to distinguish my custom fields from standard fields and your own. You may find it tedious changing many field names throughout the configuration, but I don't think there's any way around that. (Although this is one reason I like the idea of the export format of a configuration being an understandable, editable text file. Much of the tedium could be removed by making search and replace changes in a text editor.)
A more robust and user-friendly configuration interface would also make things much easier. The ability to copy views and branches of views, to easily move them around and to hide them (i.e., so they can be saved in the configuration, but not used in Theatre View) would help a lot. An imported view (or group of views) could be moved beside a similar existing one for comparison, a copy made and hidden for backup, and then the original modified or experimented with. At the worse, it would be so foreign to the host library it would be pointless to try to modify it. But being able to examine it inside the interface, along side the creator's screenshots, and compare it to existing understood views is likely to be an excellent illustration of any relevant techniques used. The user can then build their own view from scratch, still using the other as a guide.
File info templates from the source library could safely be added to the end of the list of existing templates. The user could then modify a template and put it in the appropriate sequence, replace an existing one with it, or use it as a guide for modifying an existing one. I don't think the file caption should be imported (because it's unlikely to work), but it can be made available in a separate text file. The user could then adapt it for use with their library and preferences, or just leave it out.
One thing a very generous view provider could do is use a fixed set of expression fields throughout the configuration for anything but a stock field that's used for exactly the same thing by everyone (although there might not be many of those). They would then provide a list of those fields, along with a description of data that should go into each. The user could then add those fields to their library, and for each one enter the expression that produces the same data from their library. In many cases, the expression would simply be one field and serve as a mapping. If the data doesn't exist, it could be left empty (which could be handled properly in the configuration).
Contrary to what I said at the outset, this special list of fields (with default expressions) would be worthwhile to import to the library. I wouldn't expect it to work perfectly, but for the most part the user could focus on modifying these 'mapping fields' and ignore the mechanics of the configuration. It may seem clumsy, but it's just a straightforward way of using the power of MC to make things easier for the user.
-
I VERY MUCH still want to see your library and views setup.
+1
-
I'm still planning to.
I need to finish getting my server back to life (the sides of the case are still hanging off and I don't have all of my drives fully functional yet), and then I'll do this. It is just going to take a little maintenance cruft-busting first (some ugly stuff in there still that I don't use anymore). I'm waiting on a new Power Supply from Newegg, so...
This weekend I should have time.
-
I'm still planning to...This weekend I should have time.
not trying to pressure you, take your time. I just wanted to let you know we're waiting patiently.
good luck bringing the monster to life :)
-
This is obviously a thing that many cares about, and we've seen how important Theater View is to most of us (ref. Theater View poll). Would someone care to create a few posts with individual suggestions of improvement from this thread? Me starting such threads have not proved to give great results lately... I think that this covers most of what have been suggested here (I've re-read the thread fast, so sorry if I'm missing some important points):
Art support
- We got the long waited Artist and TV Show art a while ago, but we're still missing some key art pieces. You can manually add Season covers, but the scraper has not taken advantage of it yet. There are also the question of adding backgrounds permanently for faster background switching, and we also have Banners for series on TVDB ready to be grabbed. Why not utilize this and create a nicer Theater View? We have most of the tools in place. What we need is the images and a few views to show them off.
Caption Management or separation
- The current Caption field is to limited when you're doing complex operations. Some sort of help here is needed. At least workbench with better overview. A suggestion of different caption fields for different media and media sub types could also uncomplicate things.
Graphical element support in caption
- Add the ability to add small images like icons in captions. Also consider to allow more caption items on the same line, to format tags on one line instead of a list and alignment of text and icons.
Better view management
- Ability to import and export views as well as enabling and disabling views. Possibly also a way to share those views with other users, so it's easier for newbies to test out good views.
Skinning improvement thread
- This is a very important field. We could really use a sticky thread with suggestions of things that developers find missing when they try to create skins. We need some focus on this is we want to get a rich Skinning community. Without this, we will forever be stuck with rather ordinary skins without much eye candy or functionality except the basics. And the user group that really have a focus on such will be pretty much lost to us.
Better Skinning accessibility
- Add options in Theater View (or at least from standard view) to download and load new skins and themes from JRiver servers directly. Add more skins and better documentation (pictures and description) of them on web pages so people can experience skins that suite their taste better.
Documentation!
- This is very important for complex things like Skin Creation and Caption customization. Most people does not have a clue how to do this.We have some documentation, but we need to improve it
-
I don't think J River should put their efforts in make more eye candy, they should leave that to the community.
Make Theater View easier to skin and customize and the eye candy will probably turn up automatically.
The more flexible and extensive J River can make the interface between the back end and the presentation layer, the less they have to focus on stuff like visuals.
Personally I don't care if it's a single large xml-file or a complete gui, just make as many attributes of it as possible accessible and dynamic. :)
That would be the best, but as of today the ampunt of different user-made skins are limited, and they are pretty similar in look. Why? Is there something that can be improved in the skinning system that makes it easier for people to make skins? Is the community too small? Something else?
In general i agreee almost totally on what MrHaugen has said in this thread, I think this is something one should focus on improving. Yes, functionality is more important than looks, but MC-functionality is stellar i think its time to give the loogs som love too.
[/quote]
-
"XBMC includes a new GUI library written from scratch. This library allows you to skin/change everything you see in XBMC, from the images, the sizes and positions of all controls, colours, fonts, and text, through to altering navigation and even adding new functionality."
XBMC Wiki
This is perhaps to much to ask of MC but at the same time it's one good explenation why XBMC has tons of skinns and J River does not. Im not saying J River should do exactly what XBMC does, but I hope J River could get some inspiration from it.
-
The Theater View in JRiver definitely needs some work, it is really the only weakness of this otherwise awesome application.
People will judge it by the default skin. So there needs to be a better one, to elaborate I think it looks too plain. Some icons, custom graphics etc.. would be nice. The backdrops are especially a poor choice (old classic oil paintings overlayed with a hi-tech looking overlay clashes in style). Also I think the default size is too small for a normal living room (it would be better to have it larger as default, I used it for weeks without realizing the size of the fonts could be changed). Also I think the resolution of the backdrop graphics should be 1080p minimum, and it's a bad idea to have the volume bar pop-up at the bottom (as that's where the text usually is). While there are a few good third party skins that proved that MC can look good, I have to again stress that reviewers and consumers judge by the default skins.
However looks is not the only problem, also the navigation in MC is an oddity. People have for years got accustomed to the navigation in DVD Players and other MediaCenters to behave in a certain way. MC goes too much against the norm.
-
The Theater View in JRiver definitely needs some work, it is really the only weakness of this otherwise awesome application.
Theater view is one of my favorite aspects of MC! What is wrong with it other than you (and I) dont have the tools and skills to customize it?
-
However looks is not the only problem, also the navigation in MC is an oddity. People have for years got accustomed to the navigation in DVD Players and other MediaCenters to behave in a certain way. MC goes too much against the norm.
You picked an excellent example of why many of us value MC—it goes against the norm. Rather than mimicking some useless navigation system born in the days of the VCR, it uses an elegant, consistent system that's easy to master and facilitates rapid navigation. This is essential for a UI that can include any number of views of a variety of different types and appearances.
People will judge it by the default skin.
That's probably so, but what to do about it is certainly not clear. What is to be done about people who are willing to judge what should be considered a demo configuration while failing to even consider that things like backgrounds and size are easily changed, the quality of downloaded backdrop graphics cannot be determined by it's resolution (or easily by any means), and the volume bar is placed exactly where a majority of users would want and expect it to be?
I believe far too much effort has been wasted on trying to make Theatre View work 'out-of-the-box' at the expense of making it easier to configure. The result has been a predictable nurturing of the notion it should work 'out-of-the-box', that's all it does, and even looking at the configuration is something a 'normal' user should never have to do. If the focus had been on making it easier to configure, far more users would appreciate the power, flexibility and elegance of the core design. And, contrary to being a weakness, is one of the many strengths of the application.
-
.......
I believe far too much effort has been wasted on trying to make Theatre View work 'out-of-the-box' at the expense of making it easier to configure.
........
It would be interesting to know what percentage of new users will take time to configure something as opposed to those who, if they don't like the looks just give up on it. Difficult to know the answer but my hunch is that the latter is by far the largest majority.
That said I still vote for a lot more configuration and skin-ability in Theater View. This should be in addition to a great looking default configuration which I feel the present one is.
Rod
-
JustinChase,
I've split your post to a new thread. It's more about usability than eye candy, in my opinion.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72370.msg489843#msg489843
Jim
-
You picked an excellent example of why many of us value MC—it goes against the norm. Rather than mimicking some useless navigation system born in the days of the VCR, it uses an elegant, consistent system that's easy to master and facilitates rapid navigation. This is essential for a UI that can include any number of views of a variety of different types and appearances.
That's probably so, but what to do about it is certainly not clear. What is to be done about people who are willing to judge what should be considered a demo configuration while failing to even consider that things like backgrounds and size are easily changed, the quality of downloaded backdrop graphics cannot be determined by it's resolution (or easily by any means), and the volume bar is placed exactly where a majority of users would want and expect it to be?
I believe far too much effort has been wasted on trying to make Theatre View work 'out-of-the-box' at the expense of making it easier to configure. The result has been a predictable nurturing of the notion it should work 'out-of-the-box', that's all it does, and even looking at the configuration is something a 'normal' user should never have to do. If the focus had been on making it easier to configure, far more users would appreciate the power, flexibility and elegance of the core design. And, contrary to being a weakness, is one of the many strengths of the application.
I'm not necessarily saying the navigation is bad, just that it is counterintuitive for pretty much everyone who has used other Media Centers before. Though I think some features need to be easier to access like changing audio tracks, subtitles etc.. Like most people living in a non-english speaking country, I watch almost everything subtitled. The problem with placing the volume bar at the bottom, is that you can't see the subtitles while changing volume.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of new users will take time to configure something as opposed to those who, if they don't like the looks just give up on it. Difficult to know the answer but my hunch is that the latter is by far the largest majority.
First impressions are very important in my opinion. Out of all the major Media Center applications, MC is the one with the most plain looking default skin (talking only about the Theater View, the standard view is fine). Lots of customization and configuration options are of-course important, but to prevent people from turning at the door you need to have something that looks more appealing to lure them in.
For example I had been using MC only for playing music for quite some time, while having XBMC on my HTPC. Sure I had taken a few looks at the Theater View, but because of the plain default look I never bothered to try it properly. The only reason I eventually gave MC a proper chance and switched to it, was because both XBMC and MP are rather buggy and unstable. And I have to give credit to MC, so far not a single crash on my HTPC. Very impressive considering XBMC and MP would survive a few days at most.
JRiver recently made two absolutely top notch skins for the standard view "Black on Black" and "Pearl Bailey", I wish they put similar effort on a new fancy theater view skin :)
-
The only reason I eventually gave MC a proper chance and switched to it, was because both XBMC and MP are rather buggy and unstable.
Aha! Substance matters.
-
Aha! Substance matters.
Indeed it did in the long run, I just wish I had made the switch sooner :P
-
I'm still planning to.
I need to finish getting my server back to life (the sides of the case are still hanging off and I don't have all of my drives fully functional yet), and then I'll do this. It is just going to take a little maintenance cruft-busting first (some ugly stuff in there still that I don't use anymore). I'm waiting on a new Power Supply from Newegg, so...
This weekend I should have time.
Well, we actually went away on a sudden, unplanned, wacky adventure to Philadelphia this past weekend, so I didn't get to it then.
But I wanted to mention that I made good progress on cleaning up my library last night. It needs one more good night of work and I'll be posting the ZIP file.
-
Thanks for the update; sounds like you had a good time, congrats :)
I'm not going to be able to do anything with it for a little while, so don't take my lack of gratitude or feedback to mean I don't/won't/didn't appreciate it.
I'm having jaw surgery, so will be a little 'out of it' for a few days/weeks.
Thanks again for spending the time to do this!
-
I'm relatively new here, but I'll also take up the cause--Daydream's post was spot on.
I first read about MC about a year ago when I was setting up my first real HTPC. I tried it out, because I'm a Stereophile, Absolute Sound-reading audio nut, and I knew MC was supposed to be tops for getting the best sound out of a PC. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out half the functionality, so I ended up sticking with Windows Media Center.
Fast forward a year, and after reading a positive review of MC in The Absolute Sound again, I tried giving MC another shot. The 17 upgrade appeared to have made things simpler, as I was finally able to figure out most of the functionality, but I have to agree... as for the interface, practically any other main stream media center is better. Period. Even after trying out various skins, etc., my wife (who is a full-time graphic designer) summed it up with her very first comment: "I don't like how this looks."
Since I value audio quality over most anything else, I've stuck with MC, and invested in both the full license and an AnyDVD HD license (even though I already had PowerDVD for WMC). But I've done so despite the interface, not because of it. And that should say it all. The back-end seems to be pretty amazing... hopefully at some point soon, the front end will be given a bit more attention. I realize it's a continuing evolution, but it's also not freeware, and as any successful software company will tell you--user experience is everything.
Thank you for letting me opine.
-
as for the interface, practically any other main stream media center is better. Period. Even after trying out various skins, etc., my wife (who is a full-time graphic designer) summed it up with her very first comment: "I don't like how this looks."
Would you mind expanding on two things.
1) Which other media players are you referring to?
2) What didn't your wife like? Standard View? Theater View?
thx,
Patrick
-
The back-end seems to be pretty amazing... hopefully at some point soon, the front end will be given a bit more attention.
You seem to be looking at it as a 'back-end' that does all the work, and a 'front-end' which is just for looking at. What about all the 'work' done by the front-end—that makes it highly configurable and adaptable to any need or preference, while still performing with great speed and efficiency as a database? Just as with audio quality, this is an aspect of MC that's very important to many of us, and one in which most of the competition fails miserably. At the same time, it's something that makes it more challenging to add the kind of visuals lesser applications can offer—because they have little adaptability or performance to lose.
It's not a matter of the 'front-end' not getting attention. Like everything else, it's being continuously improved in incremental ways that are feasible. Instead of criticizing it for not being something none of us want it to be, you'll have to be much more precise about how it can made to look better, and how that might be done without sacrificing any of the fundamental qualities that already set it apart from its inferior competition.
-
It's not a matter of the 'front-end' not getting attention. Like everything else, it's being continuously improved in incremental ways that are feasible. Instead of criticizing it for not being something none of us want it to be, you'll have to be much more precise about how it can made to look better, and how that might be done without sacrificing any of the fundamental qualities that already set it apart from its inferior competition.
What is it "none of us wants it to be"? Look at skins of products like meedios (or XBMC), the best skins are much better looking extremely flexible in what to show and how. Is a better software all in all? not at all imho. But i don't see the sacrifice you claim has to be made. Better lookung menu-elments, and fonts, with better flexibility of placement and more skins, in no way has to alter the flexibility in MC theatre view.
-
Better lookung menu-elments, and fonts, with better flexibility of placement and more skins, in no way has to alter the flexibility in MC theatre view.
Then, by all means, make some specific suggestions. And if it's not self-evident, explain how they could be implemented without negative consequences. JRiver has made it clear such suggestions will be considered. But it seems all they get are sweeping judgments like "the front-end needs more attention" or "Theatre View needs more eye candy."
-
Then, by all means, make some specific suggestions. And if it's not self-evident, explain how they could be implemented without negative consequences. JRiver has made it clear such suggestions will be considered. But it seems all they get are sweeping judgments like "the front-end needs more attention" or "Theatre View needs more eye candy."
A lot of people do not have the know-how to be very concrete on how to solve what they percive as problems or areas of improvement. That dosn't make their points invalid. But to give an example, this is a skin a find to be quite a lot better looking than theatre view as of today
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8941/aeondark.jpg
But i think the main point is the lack of options when it comes too the look of theatre view. The amount of skins are small, and besides coloring they are pretty similar in look. I am sure many people would disagree with me, on what skin is best looking.
-
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8941/aeondark.jpg
So if we used backgrounds with young women in bikinis, would that work for everyone?
If you like large letters, try using the size feature in Theater View options. Those letters would be around 180% in MC.
-
A lot of people do not have the know-how to be very concrete on how to solve what they percive as problems or areas of improvement. That dosn't make their points invalid. But to give an example, this is a skin a find to be quite a lot better looking than theatre view as of today
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8941/aeondark.jpg
I dont agree. I like the simple interface of theater view much more than those.
I am all for Theater View improving in terms of usability, but not at the expense of the current feel.
-
So if we used backgrounds with young women in bikinis, would that work for everyone?
+1 :)
Okay, being serious, I cannot understand why people keep criticizing the Theater view, I personally like it more than the XBMC-menus... (I know, I can do menu that looks like a JRiver...). I like the famous paintings and the menus are usable and it shows the info I need (and little more...). So, what you need more? Am I just a dinosaur that has dropped from the fashion?
-
I dont agree. I like the simple interface of theater view much more than those.
I am all for Theater View improving in terms of usability, but not at the expense of the current feel.
This!
Couldn't agree more.
-
Doesn't everyone already have a 'young girls in bikinis' Theme? No wonder so many are unhappy...
-
So if we used backgrounds with young women in bikinis, would that work for everyone?
If you like large letters, try using the size feature in Theater View options. Those letters would be around 180% in MC.
Come on, I am trying to be serious and constructive here. Please give me the same courtesy. The difference isn't one of simply font size, and the background-pictures are user-chosen and obviously irrelevant. And as I said, other people probably don't agree to what skin looks the best. Different people have different taste.
I am sure its not done with ill intents, but the MC-team is usually very good at listening to user feedback, even if they don't agree or don't implement. Maybe I am beeing grumpy, but I don't like it when I am trying to be helpful and the points I am trying to make are made fun of or met with irrelevant considerations.
So, my point with the screenshots are NOT what background images this screenshot has, nor that everyone has to like that particular skin better than the MC-default.
-
Come on, I am trying to be serious and constructive here. Please give me the same courtesy.
I'm sorry if you were offended. I was at least half joking.
As rick.ca mentioned, it's not clear what people want. We hear the general grumbling, but without specifics, we'll never get anywhere.
Our point of view is this:
1. I like simple.
2. Matt likes what it is now. It's more than what I would call simple.
3. Taste is so subjective that we could fix it for you and break it for others.
4. It is functionally pretty good. It works with a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, or a Media Center Remote. It was no easy feat to get it there. We don't want to break that.
5. It can be customized now. xplain did a nice job. Others may do so in the future. We've never documented this well.
I can see some obvious things we could do. We increased the default text size last week, for instance.
We will do more. We just have to weigh the costs and benefits of the very long list of changes that both we and our customers would like.
I wish we had 2x or 4x the budget to work with. It does feel like we're getting there now. Our sales grew more than 50% each of the last two years.
-
We need possible features to be added so we CAN enable it with skinning.
I fished this out of a long paragraph which would otherwise be a solid argument for why all this is a lost cause. Now, the same users who will not take advantage of the boat-load of features already available for 'customizing' Theatre View are obviously unlikely to use any additional skinning features. So the idea behind this must be the few with the necessary ability and willingness will use these features to create new skins. If enough high quality skins are created, there may be sufficient variety most could find something better suiting their visual taste than a default skin. In other words, something similar to the situation we now have with skins for Standard View.
Theatre View is not going to be re-developed with a new full-featured (whatever that means) skinning system. So "possible features to be added" should be taken literally. That is, the features must be feasible in the context of the current Theatre View, require a relatively small amount of development time, and yet still produce a result of significant benefit. The problem is, how can users who don't understand the plumbing identify such features?
So why not support efforts like xplain's design group (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=72366.msg489820#msg489820). Not only would some interest in the project motivate those participating, knowing the sort of results users are hoping for has to help. Also, knowing the best they're going to get in the short term may be just one relatively-easy-to-implement feature, they would be the best judge of what feature to request—the one providing the biggest bang-for-the-buck in the circumstances—and how to make a case for it the developers are able to consider.
This isn't going to provide any instant gratification. But if skinning has been neglected, this is the sort of thing that has some chance of raising the level of attention to that most aspects of the program get. That is, users do their best to describe features they believe will benefit many, and then some of those are implemented in a process of ongoing incremental improvements. It takes time, but it's much more effective than, "I want it to look like XBMC."
-
I fished this out of a long paragraph which would otherwise be a solid argument for why all this is a lost cause. Now, the same users who will not take advantage of the boat-load of features already available for 'customizing' Theatre View are obviously unlikely to use any additional skinning features. So the idea behind this must be the few with the necessary ability and willingness will use these features to create new skins. If enough high quality skins are created, there may be sufficient variety most could find something better suiting their visual taste than a default skin. In other words, something similar to the situation we now have with skins for Standard View.
Theatre View is not going to be re-developed with a new full-featured (whatever that means) skinning system. So "possible features to be added" should be taken literally. That is, the features must be feasible in the context of the current Theatre View, require a relatively small amount of development time, and yet still produce a result of significant benefit. The problem is, how can users who don't understand the plumbing identify such features?
I don't quite follow you? As far as I can tell, the situation fore standard view is not one of big variety, it's skins with different colors more or less, but the variety is pretty small, it is instantly recognizable as MC due too its look.
And why isn't theatre view going to be redeveloped? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Frankly, I hope it will, if that is whats necessary to get a flexible skinning system, but it will take a development effort of course.
-
I'm sorry if you were offended. I was at least half joking.
As rick.ca mentioned, it's not clear what people want. We hear the general grumbling, but without specifics, we'll never get anywhere.
Our point of view is this:
1. I like simple.
2. Matt likes what it is now. It's more than what I would call simple.
3. Taste is so subjective that we could fix it for you and break it for others.
4. It is functionally pretty good. It works with a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, or a Media Center Remote. It was no easy feat to get it there. We don't want to break that.
5. It can be customized now. xplain did a nice job. Others may do so in the future. We've never documented this well.
I can see some obvious things we could do. We increased the default text size last week, for instance.
We will do more. We just have to weigh the costs and benefits of the very long list of changes that both we and our customers would like.
I wish we had 2x or 4x the budget to work with. It does feel like we're getting there now. Our sales grew more than 50% each of the last two years.
I agree with number 3. That is why what you, matt or I like doesn't matter all that much (of course there is some central design guidelines that most people can agree on, but you get my point). The point is to make a flexible system. I don't see anything with the look i posted that would brake any navigational features.
Maybe it can be customized, I have no experience in skinning, so maybe you can make the exact same thing, but I don't know how, that the problem is that nobody has done it more than it can't be done. Let me tell what i like with the skin i posted, and maybe we/I can get some more light shed on it.
What i like about the skin:
1. The grey continuous background around the the menuchoices (tv shows, musc, movies and so on), can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
2. The lighter grey info bar underneath the menu-choices, which has rss-feeds or other info about the menu-choice, can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
3. The font-size and type, and the fact that the menu-choices can be placed at the bottom of the screen instead of the middle, can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
4. That the menu-choice is signaled by a color-change, not a white box around it, can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
5. That if all the menu-elements fits on a single screenwidth, the menu-choices are locked in place, (in MC, it would be that only the white selecting-box moved, but the menu-choices where locked in place on the screen), can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
6. That background images are non-faded in the menu and change very quick when you change what menu-choice is selected, I haven't found a way to do this in MC.
If anyone is really interested, I guess i could do the same treatment deeper down in the selections too, (showing movies, movie-info and so on).
-
I don't quite follow you? As far as I can tell, the situation fore standard view is not one of big variety, it's skins with different colors more or less, but the variety is pretty small, it is instantly recognizable as MC due too its look.
Well, maybe I'm not following MrHaugen. I made the assumption he had something feasible in mind. If he didn't, I nevertheless hoped this reasoning might steer the discussion towards something more productive.
And why isn't theatre view going to be redeveloped?
Because JRiver has said, over and over again, it would not be (any time soon). Most recently, in the post immediately before mine! If it ever is, it's still unlikely be anything like you seem to be wishing for. Such a skinning engine would have to be far more complicated for something as flexible and complex as MC than it's much simpler competitors. And even if it were possible to create such a thing, it's not at all clear MC has a sufficiently large user base that an active and productive skinning community would spontaneously evolve.
...can this be done with Theatre view-skinning today?
Some of these things (or something similar) probably can be done today. Others might require some change or new capability. Some are not feasible or compatible with the overall design of how things work.
The insistence JRiver provide the means to make MC look and feel like XBMC (or some other inferior competitor) is a waste of time. It's also an unnecessary distraction from the possibility of incremental improvements that would allow for more variety in the visual style of Theatre View.
-
The insistence JRiver provide the means to make MC look and feel like XBMC (or some other inferior competitor) is a waste of time. It's also an unnecessary distraction from the possibility of incremental improvements that would allow for more variety in the visual style of Theatre View.
That is you opinion, I do not think its a waste of time. Neither do i see how this is a distraction from incrementasl improvments either. Changing the system for more flexibility can be done incrementally or it can be done non-incrementally.
-
another 2c....
I don't think I would ever create a skin, so I don't feel like I should ask for an overhaul of the skinning system (though I could see a benefit, I can also see how hard that would be). So I am going to suggest some incremental ideas that aren't just about making it look pretty, but are about making the information convey faster and more graphically ...
(some is rehash of previous suggestions, so please forgive repeat)....
... make it easy for me to decifer my meta-data in a more graphical way. I find quite a few screens very empty and could be filled with more graphical objects. In concept I would like to see the info panel supplemented by a new customizable window or space that can be populated with graphical movie information, e.g. MPAA symbol for PG-13, the media resolution converted into a DV, Blu-ray, HD or other symbol, stars for TVDB rating, trademarks for the studio. There must be a reasonable subset of items that we would like to see and then use expressions to turn them on/off etc. Yes this information can be put in the info panel, but it is kind of clunky with one line per data item (though I suppose a fancy expression could be used). This won't affect the navigation, only what we see.
I think there should also be some tweaking of some "typical" view types that add value to what 80% of people use. We seem to be a little constricted to the current info panel and generic types that work across a huge spectrum of possibilities. We don't need to loose the flexibility, just add a few view types that reflect that the majority are viewing movies and TV series. e.g. TV series.... Some custom view types that include banner art and season art (with some graphical symbols as above). You don't need to make such a view completely customizable, keep the current system for that, just add your best guess as to what we might want to see. This is akin to the pop-up window in standard view; you have not made it customizable, and it is not perfect, but it is better than nothing.
Rick.ca had some examples a while ago where the horizonatal file list that used to show one thumbnail for each episode now just shows one thumbnail as all episodes have the same season image. He added a custom .log file and "tricked" mc, but we shouldn't have to, there should be a "TV Series" list type that changes the default behavior.
Sure we will all complain that we want to chanage xy and z, but it would be a start.
Craig
-
In concept I would like to see the info panel supplemented by a new customizable window or space that can be populated with graphical movie information...
This is a perfect example of the simple, practical suggestion that gets lost in the useless distraction that MC must aspire look more like XBMC. It has been mentioned by several of us several times, yet always gets lost in the debate over that which will never happen. Perhaps it should be discussed as topic on its own by those who prefer to contribute practical suggestions for improvements. ;)
-
Yes XBMC is prettier, but to be honest the two things I miss most about their 10ft interface is the their menu for changing things like the audio stream and subtitles. MC's right click menu is just way too small and not remote friendly or consistent with the rest of the theater view interface. Realise this is because it is the player, but make for a dismount home theater experience. Even if the current menu's font size was increased 2x or 3x it would make a big difference.
Other thing is their plug in to download subtitles via 10th interface but realise this is a bit of a niche feature and might not be that important to most people.
-
Yes XBMC is prettier, but to be honest the two things I miss most about their 10ft interface is the their menu for changing things like the audio stream and subtitles. MC's right click menu is just way too small and not remote friendly or consistent with the rest of the theater view interface. Realise this is because it is the player, but make for a dismount home theater experience. Even if the current menu's font size was increased 2x or 3x it would make a big difference.
You have the OSD for that. Use the arrow keys and change Audio streams, Subs etc.
-
Yes XBMC is prettier, but to be honest the two things I miss most about their 10ft interface is the their menu for changing things like the audio stream and subtitles. MC's right click menu is just way too small and not remote friendly or consistent with the rest of the theater view interface. Realise this is because it is the player, but make for a dismount home theater experience. Even if the current menu's font size was increased 2x or 3x it would make a big difference.
You can switch many things with the OSD (see the wiki) by using a remote or the arrow keys on a keyboard.
You can increase the "Size" of theater view to get the equivalent of larger fonts.
-
This is a perfect example of the simple, practical suggestion that gets lost in the useless distraction that MC must aspire look more like XBMC. It has been mentioned by several of us several times, yet always gets lost in the debate over that which will never happen. Perhaps it should be discussed as topic on its own by those who prefer to contribute practical suggestions for improvements. ;)
People are trying to help, instead of constantly repeating how useless their suggestions are, maybe its better to come with constructive suggestions to how people can pinpoint what they are looking for. I tried to be concrete about what i would like to see, and asked if it already is possible to do. All i got as an answer from you was basically "some can be done, some canot be done", and you repating how useless "XBMC-feedback" is yet another time. It is of course not you repsonsibilty to make my suggestions better, or more to the point (or answer my questions for that matter). But frankly, I don't find your answers very helpful either, if you really want people to give what you percive as better feedback.
-
I'll try to create a better basis for Theater View Skinning specific suggestions and discussions later on. Instead of discussing wanted skinning functionality mixed in with all other suggestions here. It will probably yield little results...
I was hoping someone with better skinning experience than me would do this, but it does not seem to happen. With some help from the users, and especially the experienced skinners, the result should be ok I think.
-
Skinning discussion would be more appopriate here:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=5.0
xplain started an interesting thread there.
-
People are trying to help, instead of constantly repeating how useless their suggestions are, maybe its better to come with constructive suggestions to how people can pinpoint what they are looking for.
I don't know what I can do that's more straightforward than pointing out a 'perfect example' of the kind of suggestion that has a reasonable chance of being discussed in a productive manner and perhaps implemented. I don't know how to make a skin either, and I'm quite sure I don't want to learn. While I'm confident my answer was accurate—as far as it goes—I agree it doesn't help you get what you want. That's my point. It's pointless raising such questions in a topic like this, especially when the post as a whole appears to be motivated by the desire MC mimic XBMC in appearance. Thus my other suggestion—that matters of skinning be discussed with those who have the ability and willingness to develop skins. Doing so will encourage them and be much more likely identify useful and feasible improvements that might be made to the skinning system.
-
I don't know what I can do that's more straightforward than pointing out a 'perfect example' of the kind of suggestion that has a reasonable chance of being discussed in a productive manner and perhaps implemented. I don't know how to make a skin either, and I'm quite sure I don't want to learn. While I'm confident my answer was accurate—as far as it goes—I agree it doesn't help you get what you want. That's my point. It's pointless raising such questions in a topic like this, especially when the post as a whole appears to be motivated by the desire MC mimic XBMC in appearance. Thus my other suggestion—that matters of skinning be discussed with those who have the ability and willingness to develop skins. Doing so will encourage them and be much more likely identify useful and feasible improvements that might be made to the skinning system.
Well, it has been pointed out that people should be more specific. Which is a valid thing to point out. I posted a concrete look i liked. And after a little while (and earlier in the thread), it has been pointed out that Theatre View is customizable. I asked the questions precisely because I do not now much about skinning. To be as precise as possible, it helps quite a lot to know what is "missing", that is what can't be done today. A person with knowledge in skinning probably will do a better job, but I do my best, and I think also my feedback can be useful in combination with an answer about what can and can't be done today, because then i can also have direct and concrete suggestions on what elements should be changeable and how.
Whatever kind of look i personally like best, be it mimicking XBMC or otherwise is pretty irrelevant in my opinion, the point is making a skinning system which is able to implment thees kind of things, not the exact look.
-
Thanks. I've been trying to find a shortcut key or similar for ages. Have been using the left & right arrow keys to skip forward and back for ages but didn't realise up and down did anything.
-
has a reasonable chance of being discussed in a productive manner and perhaps implemented.
That's the thing. I don't see it as a productive manner.
I say "build a new skinning engine". "Not doable" others say.
Then I could come in with a list of 1500 small changes that would be the base of a (new) skinning engine. Either 5 of 1500 will be implemented and that will count just as much as a sneeze against the wind, or 1300 of 1500 will be implemented and that would equate to building a new skinning engine anyway.
But this is not about that. A new skinning engine will not be build because it's not financial viable. The rest - creative control, design, ideas, blabla - it's all fluff talk. If JRiver would know for sure that they will double their business by building a new skinning engine they would probably started working on it months ago. But there is no such guarantee. I can't fault JRiver for this. Their product, their call. But I can write 3 pages why that rubs me the wrong way.
-
But I can write 3 pages why that rubs me the wrong way.
But you already have. At least I think you have. It sure seemed like 3 pages... ;)
If only a new skinning engine will do, then maybe the idea should be abandoned entirely. Everyone's time would be better spent identifying things JRiver (rather than skinners) might do to make the existing Theatre View more visually attractive.
-
Elvis133 said:
"I asked the questions precisely because I do not now much about skinning. To be as precise as possible, it helps quite a lot to know what is "missing", that is what can't be done today."
it sounds like you, and the vocal minority, dont know how and dont know what, but definitely want something different going on in Theater View.
Seeing that you dont even know what will and wont work with the current build, why not create unique individual threads asking if something is possible, or desirable from the global perspective.
You may find that some requests are impossible. Some may be only applicable to you and obviously not worth pursuing globally. Some may be possible and the experts will tell you how to achieve it on your own.
Yet other ideas may get a response from a ton of people. Matt and Jim may come in to your thread and say "YES! Great idea. Coming in the next build".
So rather than simply posting screenshots of XBMC, why not take the time to ask ONE specific question like "Is it possible for me to move the rollers to the bottom or middle of the screen?"
These type of requests, over time, will help you determine what can and cant be done, how to implement them yourself, and how to extrapolate what you learn to other aspects of the views you want to customize.
I think this is what Jim and Rick and others are talking about. These threads are far too general, and any specfic questions or suggestions get lost in the shuffle.
Cheers,
Patrick
-
A new skinning engine will not be build because it's not financial viable. The rest - creative control, design, ideas, blabla - it's all fluff talk. If JRiver would know for sure that they will double their business by building a new skinning engine they would probably started working on it months ago.
I wish that other people would not try to speak for JRiver.
This is an area that we will work on again, but now it is not at or near the top of the list.
Here's my list:
1. Mac and/or Linux versions
2. Cablecard support
3. Rock solid performance. DLNA, Video Conversion, Cover Art, etc. Details details details.
When we think that Theater View is the weakest link in the chain, we will return to it. At the moment, I'm not convinced that it's weak at all.
-
I think this is what Jim and Rick and others are talking about. These threads are far too general, and any specfic questions or suggestions get lost in the shuffle.
Far too general is correct. And often far too wordy. The good ideas are buried.
-
1. Mac and/or Linux versions
Would this Linux version be a port for something like "unRAID" +100 on this if it is..
-
I don't know anything about unRaid, but it would be MC, running on Linux. It would have a limited feature set in the beginning.
-
1. Mac and/or Linux versions
:o :o :o
Oh yeah, and Cablecard support would be awesome if you can pull it off. That's a pain though...
-
I don't know anything about unRaid, but it would be MC, running on Linux. It would have a limited feature set in the beginning.
WOOHOO!!!
-
Elvis133 said:
it sounds like you, and the vocal minority, dont know how and dont know what, but definitely want something different going on in Theater View.
Seeing that you dont even know what will and wont work with the current build, why not create unique individual threads asking if something is possible, or desirable from the global perspective.
You may find that some requests are impossible. Some may be only applicable to you and obviously not worth pursuing globally. Some may be possible and the experts will tell you how to achieve it on your own.
Yet other ideas may get a response from a ton of people. Matt and Jim may come in to your thread and say "YES! Great idea. Coming in the next build".
So rather than simply posting screenshots of XBMC, why not take the time to ask ONE specific question like "Is it possible for me to move the rollers to the bottom or middle of the screen?"
These type of requests, over time, will help you determine what can and cant be done, how to implement them yourself, and how to extrapolate what you learn to other aspects of the views you want to customize.
I think this is what Jim and Rick and others are talking about. These threads are far too general, and any specfic questions or suggestions get lost in the shuffle.
Cheers,
Patrick
I have never posted a screenshot from XBMC. And I know what I would like to be different in JRMCs Theatre View, but I do not always know how to do it. Thats is why I am trying to be as concrete as possible, and make a point list of exactly what I feel is needed, and asking if this can be done today. And if not, what can be done to make it possbile.
But so far, my try to be specific, adress one point at the time and learn hasn't been answered by anyone (not even a single one of the questions) . Not by any user, not by any staff. So this far, the advice to be less genereal hasn't payed of.
-
Linux support would be great!! Even if it is just a sort of headless backend for the database and scraping engine. Though I imagine there are plenty of people that would be interested in the recording and transcoding. On the unraid side of things would not be surprised if someone ports it much like they did the plex server and air video server.
-
But so far, my try to be specific, adress one point at the time and learn hasn't been answered by anyone (not even a single one of the questions) . Not by any user, not by any staff. So this far, the advice to be less genereal hasn't payed of.
I've read most if not all of the posts here. Did you read mine?
There are thousands of you out there. There are only a handful of us. We can't answer all of the posts.
-
When we think that Theater View is the weakest link in the chain, we will return to it. At the moment, I'm not convinced that it's weak at all.
While I don't think Theater View is weak I do think it is the weakest part and has the most potential for improvement.
I have to say though that all of the talk about this or that looking better/worse is growing tired quickly and I feel it has become counter productive. All that has been proven is that there
is no way to make everyone come to an agreement on how things should look.
This causes a developer to think to himself or at least it would me:
"Well if I make a change a percentage of the people aren't going to like it and if I don't I risk alienating the people asking.
I am not a mind reader so I don't know what percentage so what is the point of putting in the effort when it could be detrimental."
My thought is take all of the parameters that control the look of Theater View that are a part of the base program and stick them in a text based resource file. With such a resource file a simple
configuration exe could be written that would write to the file and people could make changes in a GUI instead of editing a text file. Many people have a fear of code but when it is a simple text box
or drop down menu they are comfortable. This could spawn some great skins quickly due to it's simplified nature and the additional options. I know I personally got frustrated when creating a skin
because I felt very limited on what I could change or add. I have even considered creating an elaborate WebGizmo skin as a replacement for Theater View as I feel like I could create something more
to my liking.
-
I've read most if not all of the posts here. Did you read mine?
There are thousands of you out there. There are only a handful of us. We can't answer all of the posts.
Yeah, i have read all your posts in the topic, (but i haven't seen anything adressing my post with my question, did i miss something, since you ask?)
I fully understand that you cannot be expected to answer every post. And you can yourself choose what you want to answer or not, I am not saying the lack of answer is your repsonsibilty. Nevertheless, from my perspective, the fact is that i have tried to follow the advice to be concrete and spilt things up into managable pieces, but it has not work very well so far.
-
I'm going to close this thread now. We'll revisit the subject when we're ready to work on Theater View again.