Print

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

[emejay]

Hi all,

I recently purchased MC and I'm hoping to make a full conversion to it after many years of using XBMC for Home Theatre and iTunes for mobile device syncing. I'm still learning MC but Here is my wishlist for MC18 based on my experience with MC17 so far:

1. Watched/Listened to indicator (in addition to play count)
- I know that play counts are available but a quick visual indicator to let users know where they left off in watching a TV series or listening/watching a podcast is a very important feature, particularly for theatreview

2. Podcasts
- ability to separate video and audio podcasts and access them separately from the 'Audio' and 'Video' heading in Theater view
- ability to only keep (and sync) unwatched/unlistened to podcasts - presently you can only tell MC to keep podcasts based on number, size, or date range - for those of us who listen to a lot of podcasts the ability to tell it to delete listened-to podcasts is very important

3. Initial Theaterview set-up tuned to typical use for media
- I know that part of the power of MC is how customizable everything is but I think it would be nice (and much more welcoming to new users) if the media sub-types in theaterview were set-up more intuitively; for example, tv shows should default into series view, then season, the way in which most people are likely to access it (I have figured out how to do this but it took some time and seeing every episodes from 14 seasons of the Simpsons in a single list put me off in my first experience)
- In a similar vein, it would be good to see labelling of video programs in theatre view more intuitive and similar to other HTPC applications by default; for example, tv shows labelled with episode number and episode name by default, even little things like having the season display as "Season 1" instead of "1" when you turn on season view - I think that little things like this will go a long way to giving a very positive first impression to HTPC users who are used to 7MC with Media Browser or XBMC

Thanks for hearing me out and I apologize in advance if anything is already in MC and I just haven't found it or learned how yet.

[Bizarroterl]

I don't use podcasts so I'm ambivalent about #2.  That said, I enthusiastically agree about #1 & #3.  The watched status is something I use every day in XBMC.  The DIY nature of Theaterview helps make it powerful, but the initial setup is a big turnoff and many potential users won't spend the time to do the research to figure how how to configure it.

[rick.ca]

All of these things can be done in a variety of different ways already.

Perhaps the default Theatre View configuration would be better (I don't know—I have no idea what it looks like) if everyone agreed these things are necessary, and on exactly how they should be provided. It would not be helpful to the extent it perpetuates the misconception the default is anything more than an example of something you should be configuring to your own needs. Or that a one-size-fits-all default configuration is essential because configuring it to individual preferences is too difficult.

The sad truth is a large portion of users can't even be bothered thinking about what they want, automatically making configuration an impossible task. What they don't seem to appreciate it's equally impossible a default configuration will meet all their needs. Furthermore, the idea the default configuration is flawed because its not identical to that of another program that doesn't offer anywhere near the same flexibility in its configuration seems rather absurd. Yes, some advanced features take some research and time to master. But for those who know what they want, the simple and consistent menu system is easy to learn and straightforward to configure.

This sort of thing is probably best considered when deciding which software best suits one's needs. There's nothing wrong with WMP and XBMC, especially for those who don't want or need the power and flexibility of MC.

[MrHaugen]

Most of it can be done, yes. The only problem is that the way of getting there is sometimes very difficult for normal users.Take the example of creating a graphical representation of Seen/Not Seen instead of a Number Plays counter. This is pretty much a default in XBMC, Plex and other similar MC's. It can be done in MC17/18 as well, but messing with ridiculous long code samples to make it work is not something most people are gonna do. Even I have problems throwing my self at this task, even though I'm a computer nerd. How can we expect computer newbies to do this? Sure, they can ask here. But there will always be a small portion of users visiting forums for help. Unfortunately.

I most definitively think that such elements should be added as default, and improved. Such systems have been discussed numerous times before. I'm crossing my fingers for version 18 being the one to bring us more user friendly configuration.

[sunfire7]

Agree with MrHaugen

[mkok]

I agree too. I want to configure mc quick and simply. I just don't have time to learn programming. I like XBMC for its simplicity and I too tried to emulate it when I bought mc it meant asking loads of questions some answered well others not so well.

We could do with some modes/templates that will give the same functions as other media centre we could use as a starting point. MC is so much more powerfully we can then branch out a little.

By the way I love MC especially the sq, ability to use two different audio outs at the same time and of course gizmo :-)

[Daydream]

I agree too. I want to configure mc quick and simply. I just don't have time to learn programming.

That doesn't tell the whole truth. The phrase should probably be "I want to configure MC quick and simply and get more out if it than from other solutions". Because if it would be just about quick and easy everybody would click independently on every file and watch/listen in MPC-HC and Winamp.

At the same time arguing against (good, strong) default settings can't be exactly right either. We're approaching a threshold where the flexibility of MC fights its outright usability. "There are no defaults, just options!"... aka "From the outside in you don't understand it, from the inside out we can't explain it". That would scare away everybody.

The threshold is the moment you begin to understand how to use it. You realize you don't know everything, but you understand the method to learn it. The forces that push and pull around that threshold are very subjective. That's why it's important to offer a big incentive to get past that point.

XBMC easy? Pffff. Years ago only the third time I tried I got it configured to scan my media right. I could not understand for the life of me how the Video menu had pointers to the real location files, and database abstractions at the same time. And then there where other Movies, TV series and the likes entries on the main menu. That on some skins would be hidden by default. What is wrong with this people?? What kept me going? The screenshot of the Aeon skin I saw on Lifehacker at the time. It's esthetic force trumped any difficulty 10 to 1. But that's just me and my artistic side. The engineers of this world are probably lured in by other details.

There is room for MC to get better at what it presents, the first time it presents it, in Theater View. From my POV - graphically.

[JimH]

At the same time arguing against (good, strong) default settings can't be exactly right either. We're approaching a threshold where the flexibility of MC fights its outright usability. "There are no defaults, just options!"... aka "From the outside in you don't understand it, from the inside out we can't explain it". That would scare away everybody.

Make a proposal.  Better yet, set it up and send us your library.

[spiggytopes]

May I chime in here?

I speak as a computer "enthusiast" (maybe nerd!) in that I will spend time getting the technical things tweaked, and I also appreciate good software like J Rivers.

My motivation for installing JR 17 was that WM7 would not play my flacs properly. I am now hooked on Theater View and the lovely backdrops to the music whilst making the most of the sound capabilities. I also feel an emotional attachment (a positive thing) to the spirit of the team and philosophy of J Rivers.

However and but ...... I just cannot get away from Media Browser for video. (believe me I've tried, doctor) It is so simple and just works. Add MB Plus and it will take you straight to the last unwatched episode of a TV series (try doing this with "Colombo" and you'll  see the advantage).

I would really like to handle all media in J River but just cannot face any form of tagging or "programming" to do it. I am keen to try the enhanced video capability in JR.

Surely, Theater View could be persuaded to load up video by folder (TV, Films, Musical etc) simply? That would be a great start for a newbie.

Thanks for a great product.

[MrHaugen]

Make a proposal.  Better yet, set it up and send us your library.

Have there not been lot's of examples? Glynor has shared his library. I'm not sure how for instance the caption looks there. But it's bound the be better than the defaults, right?
And I think Rick have posted his caption code as well. Not sure if it was complete or just some portions of it though. That might be the most complete example I've seen to date.

I'm willing to dig into this my self if there is a good chance that the defaults can change for the better. But I think that there are others that are better suited for the task.

[csimon]

Surely, Theater View could be persuaded to load up video by folder (TV, Films, Musical etc) simply? That would be a great start for a newbie.

Go into the Theater View view setup and add an item to the menu that is categorised by folder. It's that easy!

[spiggytopes]

Go into the Theater View view setup and add an item to the menu that is categorised by folder. It's that easy!

OK, I will try it.

I have read in the v 17 forum that this process required tagging?

To be clear ---

Can I load two folders "TV" and "TV-DVD" into Theatre View but have Theatre View display as one folder called "TV"?

Thanks for the response!

[csimon]

I have read in the v 17 forum that this process required tagging?

Not for pure folder views, no.

Can I load two folders "TV" and "TV-DVD" into Theatre View but have Theatre View display as one folder called "TV"?

Err, probably this requires some manipulation, this is not then a view on folders!

If you want to do some custom things then I'm afraid you are going to have to learn how to customise MC to your own requirements.  Experiment with the standard views in the client first of all without going into Theater View, then you can get the views working as you want.

I'm not sure off-hand how you would do what you want to do without having the MC screens in front of me to show me what options it gives, but I think first of all you need to be clear about what you want to achieve.  First of all, decide if you want a folder view or not.  Merging two distinct folders into one is not a folder view.  And what happens with the directory hierarchies underneath each of TV and TV-DVD - what do you want to see when you drill down into your merged virtual folder called "TV"?

If you've imported the files strategically, you might even find that MC has automatically populated the Media Type/Subtype field with TV Shows.  In which case I guess Theater View should already have them split out under a heding of TV by default.

[spiggytopes]

Well, to answer the question ...

I keep "TV" separate from "TV-DVD" so that I can immediately go to and maintain rips of my archived DVDs as necessary.

I'm not totally against amalgamating "TV" with "TV-DVD" and also "Films" with "Films-DVD".

The virtual folder "TV" would simply populate itself with all the TV shows, in alphabetical order, be they from "TV" or "TV-DVD", which is what MB does now.

I don't want this to become a thread for advocating MB, so I'll stop here and wait patiently until J Rivers becomes a degree easier to set up for video.

Thanks for the reply and interest.

I'd just like this to be added to the wish list if possible, together with the "already watched" flag.

[InflatableMouse]

Being an ex-XBMC user myself there is actually only one thing I really miss and still use XBMC for .. subtitle download.

The addon in XBMC is subliminal. 2 pushes on the remote and it's got proper subtitles for almost anything.

See, although my english is more than good enough to understand most of it, sometimes I need to turn the volume down or people mumble, talk with slang and accents (The Wire? I'm sure even Americans struggled with some of that slang!) that subtitles are a must. Manually searching websites is such a drag ... find it, download, rename, copy it, restart video. XBMC subtitle scraper automates the process, searches multiple sites and puts it in the correct folder with the proper name and activates it on the fly.

If that feature would make it to MC I would deinstall XBMC. I love many of its features, skins, etc but its all secundary to the audio and video quality MC offers.

[JimH]

I split some of the not too nice comments to a different thread:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73967.0

Please stay on topic and leave out the personal "you don't understand" sort of remarks.

[Matt]

Being an ex-XBMC user myself there is actually only one thing I really miss and still use XBMC for .. subtitle download.

I think this would be a nice addition.  We would start with one or maybe two sources.

Is http://www.opensubtitles.org the best source to start with?

[MrHaugen]

I think this would be a nice addition.  We would start with one or maybe two sources.

It would be nice indeed. One less application needed.

[InflatableMouse]

I think this would be a nice addition.  We would start with one or maybe two sources.

Is http://www.opensubtitles.org the best source to start with?

Awesome!

Ideally, you'd need a different source for movies and series but some sites do offer subs for both movies and series. I guess if you make this distinction from the start it be easier to add sources later that offer only subs for movies or for series, not both. For example, with the XBMC addon you can configure the scraper for series and movies separately.

For dutch, I use ondertitel.com for movies and bierdopje.nl for series.

If I had to choose a site for both movies and series and multiple languages, I'd say Podnapisi.net, but Opensubtitles.org isn't bad either.

What's really important with downloaded subtitles is for which release the subs are synced for. Without it, you'd almost always get the wrong subtitles and they won't be in sync which is useless.

Thanks for considering.

[Daydream]

Make a proposal.  Better yet, set it up and send us your library.

It's not something I can do with the library, it's what I cannot do.
The Theater View 'editor' (Items to show + Details) it's too far removed from what somebody new would understand. It's a vertical representation of items that will be displayed horizontally (most of the time), by criteria (the "Details" part) that may escape even to a veteran user. This is a tool at engineer level. Imagine I'm a new user. I want to add an item -> the sky explodes. A Category, a Library Item, a Library Item from Standard view (wait, what? but what are the other items then, standalone items with their own logic? You mean I have two types of items and I get to juggle them... how? OMG, etc, etc), and then we set up rules on them and that will affect Theater view... where? Let's see. Go in. 2 level menus/rollers, both changing as you navigate to the point that I lost track how many level 'in' I am. This can't be too attractive to a new user. You can't 'get' them. If there is the concept of incentive to keep using Theater View this is at the opposite end.

My suggestion would be to change that part where Theater view is configured into something that is closer to what Theater actually looks like. VISUALLY closer. The menus should be in there somewhere just as they show up in Theater view. Clicking on an item should allow me to set its properties with submenues, etc right there on the item so I know exactly what I'm configuring and where it will appear.

At the far end this could become a skin editor (zing!).


Another thing. The main (first) screen has more items on the second roller than on the first roller (again I'm talking defaults, not what one can do with MC). This doesn't bod well. It exacerbates the problem of having to navigate too much to get something done (meaning played). Especially that further down the road as I navigate I have to go through a screen showing the detailed information about an item (I'm talking mainly video at this point) before I can play it (this has been discussed before).

I believe this is something worth noting. Theater view aims too hard to show you everything before you can play something, across all its views. I see 2 options: show info and items on the same view (this is what XBMC excels at on some of its more complex views) or show the items, no metadata (for whoever wants to keep it simple). And that's it, I can play stuff straight from there, don't force the user to go anywhere else. If I wanna see advanced/complete information about an item, that would be an option - key press, something - leading to a new screen maybe with a bigger poster and listing everybody down to the guy that held the boom.

I'll make an analogy. You remember how Firefox looked by default circa version 3? With icons with text names, and multiple menu, bookmark, nav, addons and so on bars? How does it look today? Simplified down to the core. And it seems everybody is happy.

Again this is all about defaults. The options to change them should still be in there, nobody's losing anything.

[Alex B]

XBMC easy? Pffff. Years ago only the third time I tried I got it configured to scan my media right. I could not understand for the life of me how the Video menu had pointers to the real location files, and database abstractions at the same time. And then there where other Movies, TV series and the likes entries on the main menu. That on some skins would be hidden by default. What is wrong with this people?? What kept me going? The screenshot of the Aeon skin I saw on Lifehacker at the time. It's esthetic force trumped any difficulty 10 to 1. But that's just me and my artistic side. The engineers of this world are probably lured in by other details.

FWIW, I just installed the latest XBMC and found it very difficult and illogical to use and apparently even seriously buggy. I am a total XBMC newbie, except that I have once before, years ago, quickly installed and uninstalled it. I couldn't see any magic in its interface. After I had figured out how to import my videos, it displayed them like any basic file explorer - as textual folder and filename lists. It did not have a volume control and it could not play the videos in full screen (only in a maximized window that still has the standard window controls visible) and finally it crashed in the middle of a very typical MKV video file. I am sure it can be configured to provide better user experience, but, IMO, straight out of the box, it is worse than a vanilla instance of MC.

Being an ex-XBMC user myself there is actually only one thing I really miss and still use XBMC for .. subtitle download.

The addon in XBMC is subliminal. 2 pushes on the remote and it's got proper subtitles for almost anything.

I couldn't find this feature by browsing the addons list or anywhere else. There is no need tell me where to find it - I have already unistalled the program.

[Daydream]

IMO, straight out of the box, it is worse than a vanilla instance of MC.

Let's not improve MC anymore then, 'cause we're all covered. Maybe not much so against our own complacency.

I couldn't find this feature by browsing the addons list or anywhere else. There is no need tell me where to find it - I have already unistalled the program.

We're not here to make MC into XBMC, we're here to break new ground and come up with new stuff. To bump heads to spark new ideas. Sure some of us come from an XBMC angle, but I don't think that jeopardizes the core MC community and development.

[glynor]

I'll make an analogy. You remember how Firefox looked by default circa version 3? With icons with text names, and multiple menu, bookmark, nav, addons and so on bars? How does it look today? Simplified down to the core. And it seems everybody is happy.

I don't know if everyone is happy.



I should add, though... I'm still a happy Firefox user.  I certainly have NO interest in Chrome.

I don't know... Look and feel and priorities are such a personal thing.  Some aesthetic things might appeal to you, and look garish to others.  But I didn't think this post (the OP) was really about aesthetics, generally, but more about defaults.  As rick and others pointed out above, Theater View can do basically everything the OP asked for.

It is telling that he is asking for those things.  The default library setups need work.  It isn't something that we often clamor for, and it isn't a "sexy" new feature (and it is probably darn-near impossible to get us to test them for you in production).  But I'd agree generally that the default Library setup (both Standard and Theater) could use a total overhaul.

The system behind it is excellent, and doesn't need much more.  But the defaults don't take any of this new stuff into account.

[Daydream]

I don't know if everyone is happy.

I picked Firefox to outline a longer trend; but the minimalist style comes of course under Chrome influence.

I don't know... Look and feel and priorities are such a personal thing.  Some aesthetic things might appeal to you, and look garish to others.  But I didn't think this post (the OP) was really about aesthetics, generally, but more about defaults.  As rick and others pointed out above, Theater View can do basically everything the OP asked for.

If you're given only one tool, even a very flexible one, that's all you can use. There should be a discussion somewhere about a flexible tool vs the right tool. I was about to say something about that when somebody asked why people change captions so much but certain things change faster than I can reply.

The system behind it is excellent, and doesn't need much more.  But the defaults don't take any of this new stuff into account.

Yeah, that pretty much summarized it.

[Alex B]

Let's not improve MC anymore then, 'cause we're all covered. Maybe not much so against our own complacency.
We're not here to make MC into XBMC, we're here to break new ground and come up with new stuff. To bump heads to spark new ideas. Sure some of us come from an XBMC angle, but I don't think that jeopardizes the core MC community and development.

I just wanted to share my experience and add a "+1" to your comment (that I quoted above). Nothing less and nothing more.

I said: "I am sure it can be configured to provide better user experience", i.e. obviously the default install of XBMC is just a skeleton for adding the desired features. I am usually more than willing to experiment with new things (for example, I seem to have 357 folders/programs in my "Program Files"), but I realized that I would need to spend a considerable amount of time reading the XBMC forums and testing the add-ons before I could create a nice XBMC setup that I could use as a reference when posting to this and other request/development threads. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that now.

In my opinion MC is easier for a complete newbie because usually after a standard install & automatic import you can simply open Theater View and see you files automatically organized and easily start playback. I did not say that the (Theater View) interface should not be developed further.

I also did not mention iTunes (iTunes is also on-topic here), because it doesn't provide many things to configure. Its interface is quite nice and usable as it is, but it doesn't allow you to really personalize it.

[glynor]

I picked Firefox to outline a longer trend; but the minimalist style comes of course under Chrome influence.

Of course.  I was joshing you a little.  It was, maybe, a poorly chosen example.  Chrome would have been a much better one.

For me, Chrome is too minimalist, which is part of why I avoid it.  And, frankly, Google knows quite well enough about me, thanks.

[MrHaugen]

Alex B, I don't think any of the long time JRiver users would find XBMC much to their taste overall. But XBMC have a few ideas and twists that JRiver would be smart to at least look into and consider.

- One thing is file captions. That is almost non existent in a default Theater View setup. We need something other than [Name] as default. A semi-complex code, which users can edit and tune if they need to, but also one that works for most of us out of the box. A better caption management would also be a very nice addition.
- Second thing that XBMC does well is to provide visual representation of the media. They use graphic where ever it's possible and logical (at least some skins). They use icons for watched, not watched, video and music properties etc, instead of showing it all in text. I pretty sure when I say that most of us perceives graphical elements much faster than we read text. And in most cases, it looks better, and it has the additional bonus of taking less space in some cases.
- The third thing XBMC and other MC's do well is to represent summary data for movies, series, music and photos in a good way. Element counters, relational data and so on. That is somewhat difficult to do in MC, as MC only shows info on the file level, not on categories above.
- Another beautiful thing with XBMC is it's plug-in architecture. You can browse to the desired plug-ins, click, download, install and XBMC can get a totally new feel. It can be a new service, it can be a new skin, it can be different navigation controls, subtitle download plug-in or what ever. Just with a few clicks on a remote. That is something worth thinking about.

Other than those 4 points, XBMC is total rubbish. I have tried it every couple of years and I shrug every time, I have to go back to MC Theater View after a few hours of testing. It's not THAT logical, the controls are a pain at times, simple things can be hard to fix and so on. MC is so much more effective and customizable overall.

Except for the plug-in part, I think must of this is pretty straight forward to do something about. At least the default caption. I think it would go a long way of pleasing newcomers as well as old MC users.

[Bizarroterl]

I've suggested this in the past and I'll put it out there again -

One of the strengths of MC is the great number of ways to customize it, and that is also what makes it too complex for many first time users.  So why not write some wizards that allow a new user to quickly set it up?   This insulates the new user from the complexity until they have a functioning setup.  Then they can delve into the guts to make those additional tweaks they may want.

[spiggytopes]

I've suggested this in the past and I'll put it out there again -

One of the strengths of MC is the great number of ways to customize it, and that is also what makes it too complex for many first time users.  So why not write some wizards that allow a new user to quickly set it up?   This insulates the new user from the complexity until they have a functioning setup.  Then they can delve into the guts to make those additional tweaks they may want.

Absolutely.

+1

[rick.ca]

So why not write some wizards that allow a new user to quickly set it up?

What, exactly (or even vaguely), would such wizards do?

It seems to me MC has gone past what wizards normally do for setting up application—in an attempt to make things fully automatic. Essentially, the program automatically scans the system for media, imports it, updates the database and displays the data in stock views. That's obviously done with the same goal in mind—to get new users up and running without having to do any configuration.

Unfortunately, this approach comes with a price—one which I believe outweighs the benefits. After witnessing this installation routine, it's quite reasonable for a new user to assume all of this should just work. Not only is that very unlikely to happen, the user ends up with a fully populated library with no clue how to configure it.

A more traditional wizard-based installation could guide the user through fundamental aspects of the configuration. Accepting defaults would end in the same result, but just leading the user through the steps would provide an effective overview of how things work in general and a familiarization will key configuration dialogs and settings. They could be the sort of wizards that can be run at any time. Those would be very helpful for the new user who knows something is wrong, but needs some sort of checklist to guide them through the relevant settings. Providing links to things that might logically be done next after a wizard is finished—Configure Auto-Import, Manage Library Fields, DSP Studio, Configure Theatre View—would make new users a little more aware of these things.

There's no value in hiding the power and flexibility of MC. A little education up front would go a long way to helping new users through the phase where this seems more like a hindrance than a blessing.

[MrHaugen]

Such wizards could give the users choice of different things like Caption presets, View templates, adding watched indicator effect on media items or not, what elements to add to the info panes and so on. You could do so much here. Literally matching the presentation of MC to the users expectations and usage, and tailoring it to their need. The wizard would be a way to help the users find something that is close to what they want. They could still be informed that you could do MUCH more manually in options later on. And the Wizard could be skipped by experienced users.

There's little value of hiding flexibility, yes. But it is imo a very high value in camouflaging the complexity for new users. To give them something they are quite happy with from the start, and then make them investigate the possibilities after a while. Not overwhelming them with complexity and options the minute they start the trial. MC is complex. There have been work to reduce the complexity for new users, but more is required before we can get a hook in all those "novice" media users  

Starting help such as a wizard should be nothing but positive for new users and the sale of MC18. A few extra clicks on first install should not kill any of us long time users either.

[spiggytopes]

Re the hiding the power of MC ....

Can I put it this way?

I consider myself only a moderate "power user" compared to others here, and I know that MC is very powerful, that's why I bought it, but use it for music only, which is fab -- clear as a bell.

I'm afraid that it just does not do it for me for video in the sense of handling all the shows and presenting them in Theatre View for watching, for reasons stated above.

So, I stay with Media Browser which really touches the spot and does everything I want it to ......... so, the choice is mine when I invest the time and effort to change video to MC.

However, I want to choose when I delve into the engine and do it in my own time. This is the point - ok, I can read here what others have done, note it mentally, and try it when I'm ready.

Maybe I'm in the wrong market for the power of MC for the video side, which is my loss, I feel.

But, I do feel that a simple wizard would help:

"Where are your vids -> browse -> select- -- > does the selected folder contain TV shows, Films, etc? --> yes, no, doesn't matter --- > add another folder of the same type of show? ------ DONE!"

Long post, sorry.

[Bizarroterl]

I think there may be a bit of confusion here.

Wizards have nothing to do with hiding the flexibility of MC.  If you cancel or choose not to run the wizard then you're presented with the regular interface.

For music MC'ers the current startup may be sufficient.  However if I'm a MB/WMC/XBMC/etc user evaluating MC the initial setup is lacking.  A typical HT user will already have a video collection.  MC doesn't find videos on my NAS or configure TheaterView for me.  Currently I have to browse the forum or the wiki/help to figure out where I get it to locate my videos.  Umm, now how do I get it to start in Theaterview?  Why aren't my TV shows under TV Shows and Movies under Movies?  How do I get it to show seasons under a TV show and episodes under that?  How do I get it to show movies by genre or diplay all my James Bond movies in one set?

All the above is doable.  It just takes a lot of research and fiddling around.  A lot of people evaluating MC will just give up.   I have in the past.  My though process was - this is going to take quite a while to set up to get to where I'm already at.  I'd rather not go through all this again.  I guess I'll just stick with what I have...

[JustinChase]

What, exactly (or even vaguely), would such wizards do?

I think you've answered you own question quite well...

A...wizard-based installation could guide the user through fundamental aspects of the configuration. Accepting defaults would end in the same result, but just leading the user through the steps would provide an effective overview of how things work in general and a familiarization will key configuration dialogs and settings. They could be the sort of wizards that can be run at any time. Those would be very helpful for the new user who knows something is wrong, but needs some sort of checklist to guide them through the relevant settings. Providing links to things that might logically be done next after a wizard is finished—Configure Auto-Import, Manage Library Fields, DSP Studio, Configure Theatre View—would make new users a little more aware of these things.

[rick.ca]

I think you've answered you own question quite well...

I should hope so. The question was rhetorical.

Contrary to "insulat[ing] the new user from the complexity," a well-designed wizard could gently provide some awareness of how things work and what is configurable, thereby reducing the perceived complexity. My main point is the effort to remove all complexity leaves many users in the position of seeing the whole thing as mysterious and hopelessly complex. It would be helpful to replace that sort of confusion with, "This isn't right...maybe I should run that wizard again," or "This is okay for now...I know I can modify it when I'm ready (to learn how to do so)."

[spiggytopes]

I think there may be a bit of confusion here.

Wizards have nothing to do with hiding the flexibility of MC.  If you cancel or choose not to run the wizard then you're presented with the regular interface.

For music MC'ers the current startup may be sufficient.  However if I'm a MB/WMC/XBMC/etc user evaluating MC the initial setup is lacking.  A typical HT user will already have a video collection.  MC doesn't find videos on my NAS or configure TheaterView for me.  Currently I have to browse the forum or the wiki/help to figure out where I get it to locate my videos.  Umm, now how do I get it to start in Theaterview?  Why aren't my TV shows under TV Shows and Movies under Movies?  How do I get it to show seasons under a TV show and episodes under that?  How do I get it to show movies by genre or diplay all my James Bond movies in one set?

All the above is doable.  It just takes a lot of research and fiddling around.  A lot of people evaluating MC will just give up.   I have in the past.  My though process was - this is going to take quite a while to set up to get to where I'm already at.  I'd rather not go through all this again.  I guess I'll just stick with what I have...

That's exactly what  was trying to say!

[InflatableMouse]

Do people really need a wizard to import videos, while things are as simple as Tools/Import?

C'mon ...

[rick.ca]

Do people really need a wizard to import videos, while things are as simple as Tools/Import?

The issue is clearly not as simple as it's being made out to be. A better question might be, if videos are organized in a logical and perfectly consistent manner—as they likely are if some other media manager was being used—why would 'Carnac' need to guess the media type and how to extract the necessary data from the file pathname? The design premise must be that some users are not this organized, and the Carnac aspect of the system is necessary for them. Unfortunately, this means they never have to get organized, and if they do, they may continue to be plagued by Carnac's bad guesses (e.g., "All my media is well organized; why aren't all my TV shows under 'TV Shows' in Theatre View?).

This is just one of a number of examples where attempts to make things easier for a some results in more complexity for all. The Carnac function would have been better placed in a wizard that guides new users towards consistent file organization and an effective configuration for whatever that is. That might look something like, "The program has detected what appear to be the indicated media types in the following folders. Please make corrections as necessary. Note that if a folder contains more that one media type, different types may have to be moved to separate folders if the program is to be able to classify them correctly—now and in the future." One of the media type specifications could be 'Use Carnac to determine'—for those situations where, for whatever reason, a folder must remain a mixture of media types.

As it stands now (which is unlikely to change), the most effective way to 'fix' Carnac exceptions is to use Auto-Import rules to set the correct values (here is a good illustration). Yes, an example of using the awesome power of MC to make things as simple as they should have been in the first place, but what else are you going to do?

[InflatableMouse]

No denying that Theater view needs work, I just don't think wizards are the way to go in this respect.

[rick.ca]

No denying that Theater view needs work, I just don't think wizards are the way to go in this respect.

Yes, in the case of Theatre View, it's difficult to imagine how a wizard could help. What's needed there is a friendlier, more flexible configuration UI. One of Theatre View's greatest strengths is the simple elegance of it's design. Unfortunately, this was not reflected in it's configuration.

[Daydream]

20 posts above I believe I suggested exactly that. Why can't there be a Theater View Configurator/editor that actually looks like Theater View (at scale, not full screen)? Menu items should have Properties (Enable, Disable, Set rules for what they trigger, etc), the views should have options - set the user default choice for each type of media, and any other properties that can be applied top to bottom. And so on.

[rick.ca]

Why can't there be a Theater View Configurator/editor that actually looks like Theater View (at scale, not full screen)?

While some sort of preview function (even just a mode switch between the same menu in the configuration and in Theatre View) would be helpful, I certainly don't agree with this. Having to select properties of specific menus and elements from a graphic representation would be even more frustrating to use than what we have now. I'm not sure what the answer is, but a big part of the problem with the current system is that it hides most of the settings—making it difficult to tell what a menu does without opening a number of different dialogs to see what the settings are. And, of course, to the inexperienced user, looking at those settings one-at-time doesn't mean much.

The simple consistent structure of Theatre View lends itself to a tree-like presentation of it's configuration. Maybe something like...

Main menu item
   Rules for file display
      Expression
      Sorting
      File caption (expression) override for this view
      Direct links to applicable File Info Panel templates
   Sub-menu name
      Rules for file display
         Expression
         Sorting
         Options
         Direct links to applicable File Info Panel templates
         Roller item
            Category name
               Field, path, expression, etc.
            Category name
               Field, path, expression, etc.
            Etc.
         Etc...
[Afterthought]

The idea is to show, to the extent possible, what each menu item does by displaying it's actual settings. Any sort of overview could be displayed by expanding and collapsing branches. Some of them—particularly expressions—might mean little to a new user, but double-clicking such a branch would show them in the usual dialog where they are less cryptic (and where, of course, they can be modified). Nesting and menu order would be supported by drag-and-drop, and any branch could be copied and pasted to another applicable parent (a great help for building similar but different menus). There would be the option to 'disable' (and hide) any branch—to support a number of purposes: Backing up an existing branch while modifications are made to a copy; hiding alternate views while deciding which one is preferred; archiving superseded or rarely used branches; etc. An import/export function could be included for archiving, backing up and exchanging any branch with other libraries. All these functions could be provided on a branch context menu, along with commands for adding any applicable child items.

I don't think there's any question something like this would be much more effective for experienced users. It might seen it could be even more overwhelming for new users, but I don't think so. It's ability to show an overview of the entire configuration while exposing the settings would remove much of the mystery of the current UI. Although there would still be a learning curve to ascend, this would be greatly assisted by clearly showing the relationship between behaviours observed in Theatre View and the settings that drive them (as in, "ah, that's why the TV Shows view does that and the Movies view does not.") Some things that remain a mystery when examined in detail make perfect sense when easily compared to other similar things. Also, the combination of the copy, paste and hide branch functions (together with easy switching between the configuration UI and the resulting Theatre View) would make it easy to learn by trial & error.

Such a UI would also open the door to other ways of supporting new users. For example, disabled alternative stock views that might be preferred due to user circumstances or preferences. For many reasons, it would be helpful to provides a 'menu comment' for documenting the configuration and display in a tooltip. Here, that could be used to indicate what such an alternate view is intended to be (e.g., "An XBMC-like menu for TV Series" or "Movies safe for family viewing by Decade and Genre"). Doing so might motivate users to exchange their favourite views, further increasing understanding and the willingness to use the configuration system.

[Daydream]

The problem is that we're not (well, a new user it's not) in the business of expanding and collapsing branches. The business is (my view) to 1) organize the content in a make-sense and pleasant enough way to facilitate viewing; 2) viewing the content is the business.

So I have 2 questions:
- what are the core criteria we're trying to satisfy with Theater View 'cause I'm not sure anymore. MC it's a very, very flexible application but Theater View is an interface, a 10ft interface. As a subquestion here ask if Theater View was actually developed with less flexibility in mind than MC itself, then maybe that's why we're stuck and there is no way out but a rewrite. Totally going off the rails subplot - compare features developed at Pro level in MC with features developed at Entertaining level (and left there).
- who, and if at all possible to be identified, how many users need an expression to define a view. My opinion is that if you're a regular user and you need to write an expression with functions and whatnot to define a view then a) there's something wrong with your content; b) there's something wrong with the core logic this application is pushing; 3) you're an advanced user with advanced requirements, and you're a minority and the application should not cater up close and personal to you' but more to the side, after you press a button that says "all bets are off".

Movies, Series, Pictures, Music. That's it, 4 types of media (let's leave pdf and likes as a special niche). I wanna know how did we get from these to expressions and complicated file captions, and expand/collapse a zillion options. And I wanna know how many (new) users don't understand anything from them vs how many pro users actually take advantage of them.

[rick.ca]

The problem is that we're not (well, a new user it's not) in the business of expanding and collapsing branches.

I disagree. Everyone is familiar with the behaviour, and even if some are not inclined to use it here, that hardly constitutes a 'problem'. Such things normally come with 'expand/collapse all' commands which would serve them well. In this case there could be such commands—one for options (so 'collapse all' would result in an uncluttered view of the menu structure) and one for submenus (so 'collapse all' would result in just the main menu items, one of which could then be expanded to the sub-menu of interest).

As a subquestion here ask if Theater View was actually developed with less flexibility in mind than MC itself, then maybe that's why we're stuck and there is no way out but a rewrite.

No, it wasn't. The essential design of Theatre View is one of the shining examples of flexibility and power in MC. I believe Matt has said the configuration UI is not something he's proud of.

how many users need an expression to define a view.

All of them. '[Album]' is an expression. A single field might be used in an expression category simply so the caption can be something different. '[Released] [Album]' is an expression. All searches are expressions. Expressions are ubiquitous in MC. Those having an aversion to expressions should be using iTunes.

I wanna know how did we get from these to expressions and complicated file captions, and expand/collapse a zillion options.

If it were that simple, there wouldn't be any need to configure anything. Those who need such over-simplification would find WMC a better choice of media manager, but surely no one wants that. With the exception of File caption (expression) override for this view, what I described is just a better way to present the options that we already have. I'm fighting a losing battle, but I know the idea of hiding options and functionality out of fear users will be too stupid to understand them is misguided. It only results in more confusion and frustration. Those who are happy with the simple stock menus will likely find this sort of presentation easy to understand (e.g., no one can be confused by complex expressions that do not exist). But they don't care anyway. Those who do would find this much more functional and easier to use. And, as I tried to explain, it would also provide a better overview of how things work, making the whole thing less intimidating. It might be used in the absence of the need to change anything—just to gain some insight as to how things work.

[spiggytopes]

All of them. '[Album]' is an expression. A single field might be used in an expression category simply so the caption can be something different. '[Released] [Album]' is an expression. All searches are expressions. Expressions are ubiquitous in MC. Those having an aversion to expressions should be using iTunes.

This explains everything and, to me, highlights an attitude problem. You seem to be saying that those who are too stupid to use "expressions" are certainly not clever enough to join your exalted ranks. Is this so? And, are we also just too lazy as well?

You forget those who are keen to join you but not willing to spend time (and I mean time as in hours, not just a couple of mouse clicks) to configure something that other humbler software just does straight out of the box .....

I have spent many hours here over the last months asking questions and TRYING to pick things up as I go.

I am sad (yes, sad) to tell you that I can see absolutely no reason to move my video collection to MC from Media Browser (music is a different matter and I use MC for that).

Perhaps you could enlighten a moron .....

[InflatableMouse]

A bit of respect and understanding goes a long way folks ... let's keep it civilized OK?

[rick.ca]

This explains everything and, to me, highlights an attitude problem.

I was only suggesting no MC user could possibly be confused by the existence of expressions in a configuration. If they were, they would have reverted to iTunes long before attempting to configure Theatre View.

I have spent many hours here over the last months asking questions and TRYING to pick things up as I go.

And I'm suggesting a better designed Theatre View configuration UI would have made those hours less frustrating and more productive. Why are you against that? What, exactly, do you want? You've indicated support for 'wizards', yet no one has described how a wizard would guide someone through a Theatre View configuration. I don't think anything of substance could be accomplished that way. It certainly couldn't be any where near as flexible and effective as what I've suggested. Nothing could be simpler than choosing among alternative stock menus and disabling those not needed. And if you chose to make modifications, the UI would be pretty much self-explanatory.

Just to be clear, I previously indicated exactly where I believe well designed wizards could be used to good effect. It seems to me correct configuration choices in those areas will ensure at least the stock views in Theatre View work as intended. The result would be Theatre View working 'out of the box' as well as any other software.

[Bizarroterl]

Here's what (IMO) a wizard should do:

Set up sources for Movies, TV Shows, Pictures, and Music, allowing multiple sources for each media type.
Set up the home screen and give the user some options on how it looks.
Go through each media type and give the user some options on how each submenu will look.  IE Do you want Newly Added, Title, Genre,etc submenus, and how do you want each to appear.  These options would vary based on the type of media.

The user is warned if there are any issues, IE the user defines a location for Music but no music is found there.

The different media submenu/views options should have enough variety so that the majority of users can get a result that is close to what they want.  IE in a TV Show submenu/view one option would be ShowName/Season/Episode#.  

The purpose (IMO) of a wizard should not be a replacement for all the possible controls, but a tool that will make it easy for a new user to get their system up and running quickly.   There's a reason a lot of software systems use wizards, and that is because they work.

As to the itunes comment.  There are really 3 types of people when it comes to HTPCs.  The vast majority will never have a HTPC and don't have the skills or inclination to ever implement one.  They can use itunes.  Then there are the tech types that understand the concepts of expressions and have the knowledge and skills to hack through MC to get a working setup.  The last group are those with a little understanding or limited time to implement MC but are technical enough to want/understand the advantages of a HTPC.  That is the group a wizard will help and those are the people that will buy MC instead of giving up.

[rick.ca]

There are really 3 types of people when it comes to HTPCs.

Fine, let's look at it your way. There are iDiots, geeks and normal users. Normal users are those intelligent, pragmatic people who consider the need to configure anything without being spoon-fed 'hacking'. If media is identified correctly (which, as I've acknowledged, may be better ensured using a wizard rather than automatic guessing), the default Theatre View will work. That, surely, is the best solution for most of these users—who don't want to waste time configuring things. For the rest (geek wannabes?), are they really going to be better served by a wizard than the configuration UI I've suggested? Given that the stock configuration works (and the configuration could offer any number of working alternative menus easily activated/deactivated according to preference), how is the wizard designer to guess what it is the user might what that's not already available? Even if successful, everyone is going to need to use the configuration UI eventually. Shouldn't it be easy to understand and use?

It seems to me the real issue here is that busy (and perhaps impatient) users are running into a barrier that causes them to dismiss the whole thing as hopelessly complex. I'm suggesting that barrier be removed—by making the configuration more transparent, flexible and easier to use. No one looking at such a tree-like representation of a tree-structured menu can fail to understand what it represents. It will be easy to isolate any menu of interest and view all it's applicable settings. Being able to see those settings for other menus at the same time may be all a user needs to understand what needs to be changed. More importantly, it would dismiss the false notion things are hopelessly complex. They are, in fact, rather straightforward, logical and consistent.

An issue caused by sheltering users from how things work cannot be solved by continuing to do so. If an automatic set up and stock views work, that's great. But it often won't, and everyone will eventually need to configure things directly anyway. What's needed is a better configuration UI.

BTW, another advantage of such a UI: Someone having trouble could post a screenshot of the menu's configuration. In many cases, experienced users would readily see the problem and could offer solutions. As it is now, many don't even know where to find the relevant settings, and experienced users have to guess what the cause of the problem might be. Even happy endings leave intact the notion the thing cannot be configured by mere mortals.

[MrHaugen]

Rick, you're writing like such a thing as a wizard and a better view management can not co-exist. That is not the case. I cheer for your suggestion of simplifying the view manager! To make it better. It really needs that so normal users can use it better. By the way... Such concrete suggestions that you made here would be better served for a specific thread on that topic I think. I would be happy to brainstorm and find a better solution.

I think that a Wizard would help that part of the users that base their first impression solely on the defaults. This is probably a big group of users. They see that Theater View view differs to much from their favorite Media Center, and they drop it. They miss the bling, they miss the lack of Watched/not Watched indicators, they miss Seasons from the Series view and so on. Small things, but still things that can be enough for them to drop it. I've seen this several times my self. They will probably not even start looking at the View Manager, even if it was dead simple.

If Theater View had a wizard for initial configuration of what views to add, what skins to use (with a preview), what themes to use (with a preview), possible location selectors for different media so carnac does not miss so much, items to add or remove from the rollers, I think that there would be a HUGE bump in user satisfactory with the modified "defaults" and there would be less problems with carnac misses.
All media centers might not have such a wizard, but you can still easily change such things with the remote in most application. It's a few clicks away, and the options are more limited so it's easy to find for novice users. We need to go to standard view and into a quite overwhelming (for new users) options interface. And that makes MC17/18 very different from other Media Centers. A wizard could be our way of helping the users with normal settings without having to go through a bunch of options.