Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[iwod]

Has anybody got any screenshot of MJ9?? Because i want to know would there be any new interface. After a while of reading and testing i am finally convinced that MJ is extremely good. But so far the only thing i don't like about it is its GUI/Layout of interface. I know we can use skin but we still can't change layout. I am currently using RealONE and Winamp3 and i like both of this layout very much. ( WMP is ugly.!!!! ) and i am thinking would MJ9 support totally changeable skin in terms of shape and form.

[JimH]

Have you looked at any of the mini-me skins?

Here's a screenshot of MJ9.

[iwod]

Oh... still the same.... yes indeed i have look at the mini- me ..... what i would prefer is that the player actually seat ontop of the libery instead at the bottom right hand corner.

And the side bar could slide in and out to save desktop space.....

[iwod]

or what about the player and media browser could be detached and form 2 seperate windows.

[Ingo]

or how about completely going to a detachable, resizable, moveable pane thing... just like in VB6

Ingo

[JimH]

At this point, we're unlikely to make any radical changes in the interface.  Here's why:

1.  We have already made a lot of changes.

2.  No matter how many changes we make, there will always be people who aren't satisfied.

I hope you will understand.

[phelt]

My opinion: I don't like the idea of multiple windows, I've found it to be annoying in other apps. However I do like the idea of windowpanes - being able to reposition, toggle visibility, and resize areas within the app window. Obviously you can do some of this in MJ now, but a more robust implementation would be welcome in the future. I fully trust MJ not to make it as messed up and poorly implemented as Macromedia's MX apps  

I do understand that it's not going to happen for v9. It's a lot of work to make things flexible without screwing it up, and true functionality comes first. But please do keep in mind that eye-candy and interface customization can be sales drivers too.

[drosoph]

I fully agree that a more skinnable approach (one that allows  a paned window to be moved, resized, and to allow the skin to choose placement of buttons, size, etc) would be a MUCH easier way to custom tailor the layout for individual users.  

But, I think that the feature-set should be ironed out before making any large-scale GUI changes to the app ...

If they WERE going to make the app nice & easy to skin .. I HIGH recommend making the entire portal XML so that the visible window would be panes of XML pages that would be completely skinnable down to each individual element.  So placement, feature set, colors, size, and even the Tree View could be altered to the users criteria (cuz personally, that Tree view is just not happenin for me )

I would be the FIRST to jump into creating a skin if they opened it up for these types of modifications.

[lee269]

Ive always liked the layout of MJ, particularly because of its power and because unskinned it looks and works pretty much like a  'standard' windows app. I dont like gimmicky skins. My idea of a visualisation is waiting for my screensaver to kick in. Having said that, I  do think there are some 'simple' things that would improve the MJ interface.

1. the ability to show playing now in the top right pane and the library as normal in the bottom right.

2. Toolbar buttons/icons etc are starting to look old. Lets have the surfing jukebox as a full colour pastel shaded XP style icon!

3. Some proper wizards to guide new users through some of the advanced features: burning, playlists, Media Server etc. For example the playlist wizard button needs to actually start up a newbie-friendly wizard dialog, even if it doesnt give you access to all the power features.

4. Oh I dont know, probably loads more little things.

Although you have to keep moving I know, basically I think in v8 you created something that has all the functionality most users will ever need. It seems to me that v9 should be about refining and presenting that functionality to allow new users to appreciate what they are buying.

I tried out RealOne the other day out of curiosity and, whilst it does have a nice friendly soft appearance, it wanted to connect to the internet every 30 seconds and even with all the pretty colours I couldnt figure out how to work it. So style isnt everything - substance counts. Ill be using MJ in the future anyway, and I can go with the interface as it is, but given the move towards a Media Centre I think you do need to think about any changes you can make within the current interface template to help new users bring out the substance that is MJs strength.

[Doof]

I fully trust MJ not to make it as messed up and poorly implemented as Macromedia's MX apps

Messed up and poorly implemented? I think it's leaps and bounds above previous versions. And I think it's leaps and bounds above any other HTML editor I've tried.




But here's my only "concern" regarding the Features First - Interface Second mentality. I haven't been here for super long. I showed up when 7.0 was out. There was a lot of talk then about the interface. There was a lot of talk about it during the development for 8. And now there's a lot of talk about it during the development for 9. It seems as though MJ is in a constant state of adding features, and little time is devoted to the interface. Now, I'm not talking about skins, although I'm a huge fan of skins. I'm talking about the interface. You can't just keep cramming feature after feature after feature into the same interface without something breaking. I think that's primarily why I've been mercilessly hounding Matt to make things easier to use. Because, quite honestly, I'm satisfied with the feature set in 8. Image support is nice, but it's hardly a necessity. But I think that user friendliness is paramount to selling this puppy.

[phelt]

Doof: I wasn't referring to DW exclusively or to its featureset, but to their implementation of panes. The major flaw with it, IMO, is the "forced width" issue. Not allowing for pane rows to be subdivided wastes interface space. In HTML terms, I think it would be more efficient to allow for colspans. Panes that need to be large (primarily content and code views) stay large, and multiple smaller panes (item properties, etc) should nest properly underneath or over. IMO, it was a rushed response to a certain lawsuit.

drosoph: oh man, XML panes. No words for how cool that would be. Of course I would try to massage it so my entire desktop was the MJ interface...

[Matt]

Interface development is an evolution.

Offer ideas for small, specific changes at a time -- think baby steps.

Image support is nice, but it's hardly a necessity.

We love a challenge  

[Doof]

Well, it's not a necessity for me. But who knows, once I get it all organized, it just may become one.

I agree, baby steps. That's why I keep bugging you for things like the Search Wizards (very nice, btw!), and a reorganization for the options screen. Little things like that just make it so much easier to sell other people on this product.

I mean, can you imagine what it's like trying to show people the power of smartlists when I can't even remember the syntax for what I'm trying to do? Meanwhile, idiot Joe User looks at WMP9 and sees how easy it is to do the same thing just by clicking a couple of menu options. Now, MJ is at that level of ease of use and it'll be so much easier to convince people to use it.

Honestly, while I think movable, dockable panes would be nice, it's hardly a requirement to make something easy to use. People are used to being locked into an interface layout. This is nothing new. And as an IT person who supports over a hundred users, I can tell you that even though every user has the ability to move or undock their Word toolbar, not one has done it.

[sekim]

Honestly, while I think movable, dockable panes would be nice, it's hardly a requirement to make something easy to use. People are used to being locked into an interface layout. This is nothing new. And as an IT person who supports over a hundred users, I can tell you that even though every user has the ability to move or undock their Word toolbar, not one has done it.

Have you told them they can move the regular windows task bar as well?


I see this is getting hammered on again. So throw my two cents into the tweak the interface ring. There is something to be said for a catchy look. And it has to be intuitive as well. And please, let's stay away from 'just apply skin' talk here. We (some of us users? i need help here) want a little more then that.

Assuming you (Matt/JRiver) would change it, in baby step fashion, what would you do to give it some glitter without hosing the rest of the development program? Any insights, visions, or other imaginations for the starving few who might welcome a change of scenery? Or at least the option for a change.

I'm trying to think small here. A few more beers and I think I'll have that nailed down...

[Michael Horton]

I don't like detachable panes, seperate windows for features, pieces that slide out, etc. It's one of the reasons that I use this program and not the others that have those things.

[nila]

mhorton - have you ever used Dreamweaver MX?

They've reached perfection with their latest GUI. It has slide in out, containers etc but it's all perfectly set up to give you full control over the layout and position of everything and to allow it to seem like one solid program.

[Michael Horton]

nila

hello

no

never heard of it

what's the program for?

Mike

[nila]

It's a program for designing websites.
Pretty much accepted as the best WYSIWYG package on the market.

They did a TOTAL GUI revamp for their latest build and removed all the floating toolbars that the old builds used to have and put it all into one solid GUI.

They did an incredible job with it.

If you are curious enough you can download a demo from their site: www.macromedia.com

[Quisp]

Dreamweaver MX and MJ are the only reasons why I still own a PC. The interface for Dreamweaver MX on Windows is perfection indeed.

[Doof]

Have you told them they can move the regular windows task bar as well?

No, but I can tell you that the ones who have found it on their own have quickly called me up to ask how to fix it because it's freaking them out.

[nila]

Matt - If you want a suggestion for a small change that could be added to the interface.

One that would make it a lot faster to navigate around MJ is some way of jumping from Media Library when half way through a view scheme with several hundred list items above and below, to say: CD.

I think the best option I have heard so far for this is using a MS Outlook 'Outlook Shortcuts'  type interface with each of the sections being customisable where we can choose what goes into each group.

From what I can remember when it was suggested, JimH really liked this idea too which means you already have the boss's approval. He wanted to see what other forum members thought of the idea though.

Maybe a sticky thread on the v8 forum might be a good way to see what people think of this idea if a mock up GUI was posted. Just play with one in Photoshop.



The other mention here of being able to have all screens dockable and moveable around the screen is also quite a nice one but probably quite a lot of work.

In this thread and many other I've also seen quite a few people into the idea of being able to see the current playlist at the same time as having the Media Library at the top. This would allow dragging and dropping into the playing now library to add files and also position them in the playlist. This could be implemented possibly by just adding: Media Library to the view options with: None, Track Info, Visualisations.

Another place it could be positioned is right above or below the Player in a window like the left pane where it can be made to disappear or appear by clicking on the little arrow things.


I also agree that the toolbar is starting to seem VERY old and could do with re-vamping. Both in the actual tool bar itself and the icons on it. Draggable icons would be a nice touch to allow re-positioning.


Hopefully that's a few small specific interface changes that could really help

[NoCodeUK]

I like the idea of being able to add some form of the media library to the top pane.  Maybe similar to the way it appears in hairstyle rather than the tree allowing files to be dragged into the playing now.  With a button there to turn the existing playing now into a playlist that would be the easiest way ever to create a playlist in any software.

In terms of customising the toolbar how easy would it be to implement an Office XP style customisation, maybe even with the chance to create our own buttons?? That way anyone who wants a specific button could have it without it having to be added for all those who don't want it...

Adam

[Sam]

Maybe a sticky thread on the v8 forum might be a good way to see what people think of this idea if a mock up GUI was posted. Just play with one in Photoshop.

It seems that the GUI is a low priority for them right now...  

Perhaps you and other web designers could post mock ups?  That way, if there's a design that's popular, it'll be easy for them to build into MJ9 as default.

[nila]

There have been a few designs thrown forwards.

Get JimH to consent to this and I'm sure you'll have a few GUI designs thrown forwards for people to judge.

It'd probably be implemented in v10 though rather than v9.

If Jim or Matt say yes to this you'll see a few designs. There are still a bunch that have been put forwards from previous discussions.

[Sam]

Jim seems determined to keep the GUI bare.

I was suggesting that you or someone else take the initiative, with no effort or obligation required on their part.

[JimH]

Jim seems determined to keep the GUI bare.

Sam,
"Form follows function."

- Louis Sullivan

[nila]

Sam, it's his product so there's no point any of us wasting several hours coming up with ideas if they're not going to be implemented.

If he was considering a GUI change then a LOT of MJ users would throw together mock up's of what could be considered for people to vote on and see what they liked the best but it's not being considered so no point.

For now just live with it or make small suggestions to things that can be changed. If you whine enough about small points and get a lot of users to agree that they dont like that feature and want it changed then it'll probably be changed.



On another note - to Jim, as you've seen through this forum and the others in the last few months, a LOT of users would like to see the MJ GUI updated and changed. Sure it's functional but that's not what most people want. Look at XP - biggest change that most people noticed was the GUI revamp. This feature even without any changes to stability etc would probably account for a LARGE part of XP's sales.

Why not open up a board to discuss MJ GUI's and let users put forwards ideas. It wouldn't cost you a penny and you could find out what the users wanted. You could have a complete GUI, as designed by your users, not costing you a penny.
It's labour for free - surely thats a good thing?


But if people were going to put effort into the GUI designs there would have to be some kind of promise that if it was liked enough by the users then it would be implemented to some extent or other in v10.
If it's designed by the users and then voted on by the users you know it's what they want.

Functionality wise MJ blows the others out of the water, GUI wise it is trailing.

Take a quick look at Helium2 which I revisted recently and have started to use more. Some parts of the GUI are pretty bad but it's biggest problem is it's inability to play songs properly. There's no 'playing now' playlist or window to send songs to. a HUGE flaw.
I'm still using it though even with this, why? Because the GUI is easy to navigate, speeds up a lot of tasks etc.

The 'Quick Filter' option is employed by a lot of Jukeboxes and is great, powerful and VERY fast. Click on a letter to filter to all albums/artists/genre's etc starting with that letter.

Also - they have employed 'Outlook' style side panels to seperate the different sections which makes getting between the db, the shortcuts, tasks etc VERY fast and easy.

Their right click menu seems new and alive and colourful and full of life whereas the MJ one (No offense meant) seems dead and reminisant of Windows 95 with it's bare functional but non decorative appearance.

The quick buttons to show or hide parts of the screen also speed up changing the screen layout quickly depending on the task being performed.

[Sam]

"Form follows function."

80% of jukebox users will use only the most basic functions.  Play music, create playlists, rename single files...

They'll make their choices (and recommendations to others) based on the GUI.  Skins can't compensate for weak GUIs.  Great features can, but only for a small part of the market.  And as MJ9 moves into the video biz, look and feel will be more important than ever.

I think Nila's suggestion is a good one.  

And I think icons are a great place to start.  This is completely painless for MJ staff.  It's a small project for contributors.  And better icons in the toolbar, in the tree, and for the MJ logo, would make a world of difference to MJ's look and feel.

If that goes well, you might want to move on to short-cut menus, and then long after that, perhaps the side panel and navigation.

Just trying to help...

[phelt]

With regard to user interface design, form frequently defines function.

[Matt]

Thanks.  We're listening.

Outlook bar

I hate that thing.  Totally useless -- especially in a tree system where depth is so important like MJ.

If you want to jump quickly, learn the keyboard shortcuts.

DreamWeaver has a sort of cool system, but we're not convinced it's a big enough improvement to warrant the design time.

Media Player makes switching between "big things" easy, but once you understand that, their bar on the left is a huge waste of space.

LOT of users would like to see the MJ GUI updated and changed

Yes.  And no matter what we do, there will be a LOT of users who would like to change it.

Icons

They've been redesigned in both of the last two major releases.  And both times, some people love them and some don't.


So again, please make suggestions for small, specific changes at a time.  Bulleted lists with concise ideas are very good.  Ideas that are obvious improvements that don't require huge changes will be implemented.

[NoCodeUK]

One small suggestion - would it be possible to have different icons for different media types?  Even if it is simply a small overlay, like a shortcut arrow, which signifies whether the files is an image, video or audio as this would make things much better in the XP Explorer icon view...

Adam

[nila]

I realise what you mean about the outlook bar Matt but couldn't this be combined so that inside of a group it had the View Schemes as a tree? or does that specific design not allow this?

Because if it did this is how I would have my left pane organised in terms of groups etc (obviously it would need to be like the outlook bar where people can create their own groups, rename groups, add items to groups etc):

[ View Schemes ]
(these would all be in a tree view as they are now)
  - View Scheme 1
  - View Scheme 2
  - View Scheme 3
  - etc


[ New Music ]
(new music when added to the db just gets lost in amoungst my millions of other albums/singles etc and makes it hard to keep track of new music, which, as per real life, I'd normally want to listen to more).
  - Singles (last Week)
  - Albums (last week)
  - Singles (last month)
  - Albums (last month)

(items would be orderable rather than automatically ordered by name, as in outlook)

[ Playlists ]
(same as it is now where we can make our own playlists etc. Would again be like the outlook bar when it's scrollable up and down so files could be dropped into playlists)
 - Good Hip Hop
 - Mix
 - etc etc


[ Tasks ]
(These would be like outlook icons now where if there are too many of them i could scroll down the list)
'Tasks' would be smartlists like the ones you've already configured except would be brought to the surface so that I could easily and frequently perform maintenance tasks on my db.
  - New files needing tagging
  - files with covers
  - etc, etc

[ My Computer ]
- tree as like now for my computer

[ Computer Shortcuts ]
- Main Music
- Newly downloaded music
- Freshly Ripped Music
- etc

[ Devices ]
- Burner
- TV Card
- Portable mp3 device



I see what you mean about the difference between the outlook bar and the dreamweaver one. The dreamweaver one would definitely be more appropriate as it would mean we could have a few groups open at once which gives it FAR more power.
You've implemented a type of dreamweaver effect for the properties box and it works great. I haven't seen one negative post about the design of that.



I know you aren't convinced it's a big enough improvement to warrant the design time but you've seen quite a lot of users on this forum express their opinion that it is. I know I personally often forget about the other features in MJ when I'm half way down the Media Library View scheme. The other sections are just totally out of view and as the saying goes:  
'Out of sight, out of Mind'.

I cant see them so I forget about them and even when I remember they're there, it requires a lot of scrolling to get to them and so doesn't warrant quick jumping between sections.
Having a dreamweaver/outlook style where I could create a groups of my choice and create computer shortcuts in would let me jump around my computer at 100 miles an hour like I do in most programs and in explorer.
Being able to separate playlists would give them a lot more meanign to me and a lot more use as a tool. Right now I dont bother. I have a HUGE list of 100's of playlists that are just a pain to navigate and somewhere hidden in them is all the smart list tasks you guys created which are great but I dont use purely because they're out of sight and so out of my mind.


Also, another minor thing - Right now the search text box is HUGE and fits all the way accross the screen. I'm just wondering how many people actually ever enter searches that long. I'm a pretty advanced computer user in terms of your average user and I never make searches longer than half this space. Do many people??

I personally would find a lot more use out of two buttons where the wizard button is. One to help me create searches and the other one containing everything else.
The wizard button would have: Add Rule, Add Modifier, Add Keyword (all things to help build a search).
Everything else that's now under the 'advanced' tab would be brought to the surface under the other button which would be just general search tools. A minor thing but I would use all these tools alot more than the ones to build up searches and so would want them to be more upfront and one click rather than hidden in the 'advanced' menu. They all seem like standard search items to me rather than advanced options.

[JimH]

With regard to user interface design, form frequently defines function.

Or limits it.

[phelt]

Sorry to be the bubble popper, Nila, but I wound up not liking the properties panel. Liked that it could be detached - that's thoughtful behaviour. But then the column headers and the search text box got into a war, and I couldn't search anymore. NBD, it's a beta. Buttons for properties would be better at the top of its display, IMO. I dislike it when tools get spread, literally, to the four corners.

I have some smartlists that use most of the search text box, so it's not going completely unused. If it were shortened, what would you put there? Better to have it than have blank space, IMO.

If I had to choose one UI request, it would be the oft-asked 'Playing Now in a pane'. I don't know how hard that would be to implement, but it is my number one wish.

[Sam]

If you want to jump quickly, learn the keyboard shortcuts.

Ok, so that makes two inconvenient ways to navigate.    

Also, a minor bug: Keyboard shortcuts don't work with the number pad of the keyboard; only with the number keys above qwerty.

I just figured out how to get almost what I needed.  I've always hated MJ's navigation.  When I'm deep in a tree, I have to click and scroll to switch to Playlists or another view scheme.  The solution would be to keep the category titles on the screen at all times - like on Outlook and others.  

Since we're not getting that...    I put the icons for Playing Now, Media Library, Playlists, in that order, on the toolbar.  And I dragged the toolbar under the menu, above the side panel.  With this, I can move around pretty comfortably.  The order of the icons and the position of the toolbar makes a big difference since the icons look the same.  (See below.)

One request:  Switching to Playlists brings the Playlist title to the bottom, leaving the rest of the Playlist section out of view.  Can you make it scroll all the way down?

LOT of users would like to see the MJ GUI updated and changed

Yes.  And no matter what we do, there will be a LOT of users who would like to change it.

Sounds like a good reason not to improve anything.

Icons

They've been redesigned in both of the last two major releases.  And both times, some people love them and some don't.

Really?  Are there real users who have said that they love the icons?  

I think the main problem is that they look the same.  They're either orange or aqua.  The purpose of icons is to give the brain a shortcut by not having to read words.  Using different colors make the icons more useful.  

Using 16 bits instead of 8 bits (it looks like 3 bits, actually) and doubling or tripling the size of the icons would help make MJ look more XP than 95.

Would it be hard to break out the icons into separate files that could be replaced?  I'd suggest putting them in the skins folder.

[JimH]

I'm closing this thread.

If you have a suggestion, start a new thread for each idea and be as specific as possible.  Phelt's post from above is a good example of one that is useful:

If I had to choose one UI request, it would be the oft-asked 'Playing Now in a pane'. I don't know how hard that would be to implement, but it is my number one wish.

When they are all run together, it's impossible to follow.

On matters of taste, we're not likely to do anything, since there is _such_ a _wide_variety of tastes.