Print

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

[DSKO]

I've been using MC for many years, and I've always thought the concept of "views" has been misused in the application.
The word "view" is being used all over the place; "view" is very general,
so it can be difficult to know which view actions and menuitems are referring to.

Here are some of the places where "view" has been used in the application:

Overview
View
Standard View
Mini View
Display View
Theater View
Cover View
Split View
Toggle Active View
Close Active View
Show 1/2/3 View
Lock View 1/2
Add View
Add Library View
Reset All Library Views To Default
Interactive view
Thumbnail view
Customize View
View As
Saved Views
Load a View
Save this view
Views
Empty View
Save View
My View
"...view header menu..."
Customize views for Gizmo & WebGizmo
Tree & View

Some examples of things about views that confuses me:

"Standard/Mini/Display/Theater/Cover View": Isn't "Standard/Mini/... Mode" a better wording?
"Split View": Is that a verb or a noun? Do I split the view (which view?) or is it a special kind of view mode (which view?). Do I split the whole Standard View in two (apparently not)?
"Toggle Active View": Which view (see over)? What is meant by toggling the active view; do I shift between the active and the passive view or between Split View mode and Standard View mode? And nothing happens when selecting "Toggle Active View" when "Show 1 View" is checked; "Toggle Active View" should be grayed out, I guess.
"Add View" -> "Add Playlist": Is playlist a view?
"Add View" -> "Add Library View": Isn't "Libray Layout" a better wording?
"Customize View": Which view am I customizing? The Standard View? The Split View? The Library View? The Active View? Everything that I am viewing?
"Customize View" -> "View As": Why only one option("File List")? Shouldn't there be more options in a dropdown?
"Customize View" -> "Settings" -> "Load a view..." -> "Empty view" -> "OK": Nothing happens and nothing seems to be changed.
"Customize View" -> "Lists" -> "You can customize the lists inside this view...": Again; which view?

Of course; I can test the actions and the menus to see and understand what happens,
but that shouldn't be neccessary...

I think the (mis)use of VIEW all over the place makes MC unintuitive.

[StFeder]

I always thought that this confuses me because I'm not an english native speaker. Kind of happy to see it's not the (only) reason

[fitbrit]

All that is just your point of view.

[spiggytopes]

All that is just your point of view.

And it doesn't accord with yours, presumably, so will be ignored, along with the many other polite requests for improvement to the usability?

But, that's just my point of view .....


 

[~OHM~]

I'm sure he was playing on the word "view"

[fitbrit]

I'm sure he was playing on the word "view"

I was.

[CountryBumkin]

If there is any terminology that needs changing, my vote would be to change the word "importing" to "collecting", or "constructing" or "Extracting" (or something similar).

Many new users think that when MC says it will be "importing" their files, that is going to be moving their files from their current storage location into Media Center. Or somehow changing the data.

I think it would be less confusing if MC said it will be "collecting" media data or "extracting" media data from their files instead of "importing files".
- My 2 cents.

[DSKO]

If there is any terminology that needs changing, my vote would be to change the word "importing" to "collecting", or "constructing" or "Extracting" (or something similar).

Many new users think that when MC says it will be "importing" their files, that is going to be moving their files from their current storage location into Media Center. Or somehow changing the data.

I think it would be less confusing if MC said it will be "collecting" media data or "extracting" media data from their files instead of "importing files".
- My 2 cents.

Please create another topic for this.

[CountryBumkin]

Please create another topic for this.

Sorry for stepping on your topic.
I don't need to create another topic - as I have nothing further to say. 

[MusicHawk]

+1

Words matter. As many other posts (including mine) have said, MC's UI is a maze of inconsistent and imprecise wording, sad because it seems so easy to fix, and even if it is not so easy, it is essential.

[DSKO]

Well said! 

[JimH]

We'd be happy to fix any obvious problems, but it would be difficult to heavily modify the terminology that many currently understand and use.

[glynor]

I've struggled with some of this when dealing with the Wiki.  I have kinda-half-way come up with an internally consistent (to me only, though, really) set of terminology.

I can't explain it now.  I have a three year old demanding attention, and she deserves it.  But I'll try to write up some thoughts later.

[glynor]

So, I agree that the over-use of the term Views can be confusing.  I think this could, maybe, use a once-over.  But it is all tied up in branding and other stuff, so sometimes it is difficult.

Anyway, there are certainly parts of the Wiki that need to be updated, badly, related to this.  I haven't had time.  But, I've built a bit of a framework there trying to break it down.

View Modes
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/View_Modes

First of all, there are View Modes.  These are the main "modes" of Media Center:
* Standard View
* Mini View
* Display View
* Theater View
* Cover View

I prefer to think of these as "modes" instead of "views" as it distinguishes them from the Media Views discussed before (the things formerly called View Schemes).  And, they really are a full "mode" of Media Center itself.  Theater View and Standard View completely different user interfaces for MC, changing everything about how it works, and so are the others (except for Cover View which is an oddball, but is still different in its own way).

If you are going to change any names, this is where I'd recommend you look.  Unfortunately, changing these names is going to be much more "visible", so...?  Not sure it is worth it now.

Media Views
http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Media_Views

These are the real "Views" of Media Center, which show you, organize, and filter your files.  In Standard View, these are different Views available in the Tree under Audio, Video, and Images (including those top-level Views themselves).  They are "views" in the truest sense: in a Computer Science sense and in that they provide you with a "view" of your media database.  In much older versions of Media Center, they were called View Schemes (which wasn't a much better name, IMHO).  Except for when referring to the modes discussed above, when MC refers to a "View" it almost always means one of these.

There are three main types of Media Views:
* Standard Media Views
* Theater Media Views
* Media Network Views

Unfortunately, these wiki pages really aren't done in this section.  The Standard View one links to my (very) old View Schemes page, which conceptually captures it, but which is ancient and wrong about many of the details now.  But, the framework for it is there.

Conceptually, Media Views are special saved searches (just like Smartlists), for which you can change the style of the display, and where you can further sub-filter the results on the fly (using some sort of "drill-down" kind of mechanism).  When you customize a Standard Media View, and choose from one of the available View Styles (such as Panes or Categories), this changes the way in which you look at those files which match the search, and the way you will later sub-filter the results.  The search is controlled by the Set rules for file display button in the Customize View dialog.

The Media Views can be nested, and when you do this, it also nests the searches.  So that a child Media View "inherits" the searches of its parents.  You can think of this as sub-filtering, and you can see it easily in the default Views included in MC.  The reason only Audio files show up under the top-level Audio view in the Tree is that it contains a search for [Media Type]=[Audio].  Therefore, it only shows Audio files, and any views nested underneath of it, only show Audio files.

Even though Standard, Theater, and Media Network Views are all setup in a different place, they represent conceptually the same idea, and they share all of the above behavior.

[DSKO]

The problem is that the word "view" is at the same time used for:

• specific objects in the tree
• how items/areas looks
• modes of operation

It goes without saying that if you use the same name for different functionality and objects,
then you are bound to confuse people.

I agree that "view" is/could be a clever objectname because it resembles a view in a database,
but I don't think it translates very good to a GUI application,
because in GUI-applications, view almost always, IMHO,
refers to how items/areas looks.

Some changes that should be quick to implement:

• "Standard/Mini/Display/Theater/Cover View" should be renamed "Standard Mode", "Mini Mode" and so on. Glynor agrees, and even internal code and API (MCC) and documentation refers to it as modes!
• Split View: It seems to me that this only applies to the area already named "Content Area". Why not call this simply "Split Content Area"? (Sub-items/actions must be changed accordingly.)

And for the long term, it seems from glynor's explanation,
that the "view" items in the tree actually could be implemented as nested smartlists.

[gvanbrunt]

I've spoken about terminology issues in the too easy thread and the answer essentially was it would break the wiki. Regardless I think many of the changes would be welcome addition for most new users, wiki or not.

In this case, it might be better to change to Standard Mode, Theater Mode, etc... That would quickly fix one area of confusion. And it also isn't so drastic that most people would still be able to figure out old threads in Interact etc.

[Chico]

I prefer to think of these as "modes" instead of "views" as it distinguishes them from the Media Views discussed before (the things formerly called View Schemes).

I can see your point, but when I think of "Modes" I think of TV, Audio, Video and Picture as modes.  You can say, "View Mode".  This gives credit to Jim's point that changing it may quiet you guys, but will certainly cause panic to some other users.

Maybe some sort of consensus on various terms can be determined from the users.

[Arindelle]

I prefer to think of these as "modes" instead of "views" as it distinguishes them from the Media Views discussed before (the things formerly called View Schemes).  And, they really are a full "mode" of Media Center itself.  Theater View and Standard View completely different user interfaces for MC, changing everything about how it works, and so are the others (except for Cover View which is an oddball, but is still different in its own way).

If you are going to change any names, this is where I'd recommend you look.  Unfortunately, changing these names is going to be much more "visible", so...?  Not sure it is worth it now.

Have to agree here. Theater Mode and Standard mode is what I use when explaining it in French.

This and "Main" Library seen on each client install have been the most confusing to people I have tried to help or have set up there system for them. Changing these to Modes seems to only involve the Wiki and some menu items (might be wrong about this). Whereas changing the other UI views (tree views) probably involve a lot of code changes and I wouldn't want to prioritize resources for that.

Personally I'm used to it, but for people getting to know the software at first ( or re-writing the wiki)  it might be worth it. Semantics aside, the real issue is avoiding the same jargon for multiple "definitions" not what the actual term used

[DSKO]

Semantics aside, the real issue is avoiding the same jargon for multiple "definitions" not what the actual term used

Exactly! 

[TCube]

Hello,

Had a good time reading this topic. Unravelling it, it turned out to be as good as Raymond Devos !
Anyway, I thought this surreal "word play" mess aka  "semantics", "terminology", "name changing", "Wiki", "re-writing", etc. could simply be solved by using standard ISO processes - yes -  ISO does applies to "Documentation".

Thus let's go back in time :

Hendrik will bring ISO 9000 standards to what some have called a very messy operation.

Here on September 10, 2013 ...  http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=83481.0

What do you think about it and no arguments about "ressources consumption" 'cause too easy
.. Could be a "external contrat type of job 4 a documentalist" (sounds a bit like mafia type of thing 😉

TC

[mwillems]

+1

This is reflective of something I've been thinking about in re: the UI for a little while, which is that there is a fair amount of equivocation (in the sense of the same word having multiple meanings in different contexts).  I think disambiguating "multi-use" words would be helpful both to new users and old users (trying to explain how things work to others), and would go a long way towards making MC more "self-documenting."  

"View" is probably the biggest offender, but the UI also uses several other words equivocally: the word "server" refers to several actual server functions (e.g. "library server," DLNA server, etc.), but also to the tray widget "MC server" (which leads to confusion);  "sync" is also used in a variety of contexts to mean different things (sometimes file sync, sometimes database sync, but not clear in each case which), etc.

I support disambiguating "views," and would suggest that other "multi-use" terms be considered for disambiguation when it makes sense.  If this is something the dev team is interested in, I'll start a new thread with an inventory and some suggestions.

[DSKO]

So, what is JRiver's view on this?

[Matt]

So, what is JRiver's view on this?

From Jim:

We'd be happy to fix any obvious problems, but it would be difficult to heavily modify the terminology that many currently understand and use.

[DSKO]

From Jim:

So what do you mean? Isn't this an "obvious problem"? Are you going to do anything about it?

[JimH]

No.

There are many overused words in life.  That's life.  In my view.

[mwillems]

In my view.

I actually laughed out loud 

[DSKO]

I actually laughed out loud 

Actually, me too.
But I guess for other reasons.

[DSKO]

No.

There are many overused words in life.  That's life.  In my view.

Honestly; to me it looks like you are making fun of me/us and mocking my suggestion.
I am/we are just trying to help you developing a better product for all of us.

[JimH]

I've said why it isn't a good idea, in my opinion.  You may disagree.  That's understandable.

[6233638]

Personally, I think the people that would be affected by any changes in terminology would only be the advanced users that already have an understanding of the current state of things.
 
The current naming of things (more than just views) is often inconsistent, and rarely descriptive in a way that allows the program to be self-explanatory.
 
It is more important, in my opinion, to make the program self-explanatory than it is to maintain parity with the Wiki.
 
So much of the Wiki is full of information that is long out of date, I don't see it being a problem anyway. If you make the naming consistent and descriptive, users shouldn't have to go and check the Wiki.
 
So overhauling this gets my vote, but it seems clear that it is not going to happen.
 
 
I do still think that it is important to move away from "WDM" and "IPC" towards using descriptive names. The WDM driver is not that new yet, and the names are needlessly cryptic. But I have brought this up repeatedly and the engineers at JRiver seem to think that everything is fine as it is.

[JimH]

62,
No more advice, please.  You're over budget.