External Configuration app "like MP"
#1
Lightbulb 
I was playing around with MP the other day after I installed it and took note of a few things. First it came with MySQL which I think is great and maybe should start rolling into XBMC as it merges with it's DB.

The main thing I wanted to request is something like the external configuration app like MP has. Having a ton of options in the main GUI of XBMC would make it feel cluttered. Having an external configuration app makes all the sense in the world. It would make XBMC MUCH easier for new users, or even seasoned members with newer installations instead of XML crawling finding various things.

It would also be a real easy way to take the confusion out of rolling MySQL in. Knock a few birds out at once!?

EDIT: I tried submitting this into TRAC but it keeps saying un pw fail. I thought our regs here pass over to that system?
Reply
#2
I have to disagree entirely:

Many MediaPortal users (myself one of them) disliked the external configuration app which tended to give a 'fragmented' feel to the app/suite

There is absolutely NO logical sense in the assertion that it would be 'easier' for new users to configure.
The plethora of options would remain the same either within XBMC UI or externally in another app. It doesn't really matter WHERE the settings are configured, but how (visually).

Whilst I MAY agree that some XBMC settings aren't always in the most logical place, or that it would be nice to expose some of the 'hidden' settings in the UI, I still believe that the general philosophy of being able to set most things from the XBMC UI is the right way to go.

XBMC is pretty good as media hubs go, BUT it's still got some way to go before it makes consumer grade configurability. It's still a little 'geeky' with reliance on 'in the know' tricks and tips, and it's flexibility is also one of it's hindrances (multiple ways to do something can often make for more complexity).

I just fail to see how an external setting configurator would improve matters.
Reply
#3
Hmm not sure i really see the point of an external config app - what benefits do you think it would give and what would you use it for? I really can't think of anything that would make sense to have in an external app.

mysql support is already there, all you need to is add it to your advancesettings, as for including mysql in xbmc i can't ever see that happening.
Reply
#4
I think the best way to address this is to introduce a webinterface for it.

The settings in general is something we want to simplify, and there's several initiatives that should help with this, but it's not going to happen overnight Smile

That said, a review of current settings available in the UI that you the users deem unnecessary, and a review of any other settings that you the users deem should be adjustable in the UI, and a review of any advanced settings that you the users deem useless would be quite useful!

Cheers,
Jonathan
Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.


Image
Reply
#5
I just went thru all the non-skin settings. All of them seem reasonable and organized properly. Though it's hard to judge when you know the app well...

Maybe "Show Parent Folder Items" could be named a little different. That was the only one I could think of that might confuse a new guy. Though, off the top of my head, I'm having trouble with a good way to describe that in 10 words or less...
Image

Check out The Carmichael - A Skin For XBMC

Check out Night - A Skin For XBMC

Check out Unfinished - A Skin For XBMC
Reply
#6
I thought from reading the general consensus was that you guys didn't want the UI cluttered with more options. Lets face it...most people don't like to or know how to edit xml's. I think it would broaden the user base a lot if it was easier to configure. I know MySQL is already there. Please go read the thread about it and you will see people having issues set it up. It's not as simple as just adding a line to your advancesettings to get it to work.

As for the web interface, I think that idea is great! Platform agnostic but effectively and simply gets the job done. Wouldn't be too hard to setup either it seems like. I would still consider that an external app (utility) to get it done...just saying.
Reply
#7
avus m3 Wrote:I thought from reading the general consensus was that you guys didn't want the UI cluttered with more options. Lets face it...most people don't like to or know how to edit xml's. I think it would broaden the user base a lot if it was easier to configure. I know MySQL is already there. Please go read the thread about it and you will see people having issues set it up. It's not as simple as just adding a line to your advancesettings to get it to work.

As for the web interface, I think that idea is great! Platform agnostic but effectively and simply gets the job done. Wouldn't be too hard to setup either it seems like. I would still consider that an external app (utility) to get it done...just saying.

I do agree with not wanting 1001 options all available in the UI at any one time, but that's not the same as making them accessible via the UI.

I think it's really a case of 'granularity' or 'depth of settings' that is the issue... and it ends up being a matter of personal opinion where in the hierarchy certain settings should lie.

For me, I think the following:

1) All settings should have initial values that are designed to make XBMC work 'out of the box'

2) Any setting that has a reasonably high likelihood of needing modification in order to make XBMC work should be available in the UI with a high priority. That is to say, if there's a chance the default XBMC setting may not work on some systems (i.e. wrong language or no keyboard or similar) then it needs to be high priority in the UI.
This could be deemed 'configuration layer'

3) Then we have the 'commonly adjusted features'. So let's say running at 800x600 would be fine for all systems - the fail safe approach.... but we reasonably expect one of the first options a user will 'adjust' is the resolution.
Followed by audio output etc. The defaults will work, but the user might want better ;-)
This could be deemed 'adjustment layer'

4) Then we get into the slightly more technical realm... Video Acceleration? Specific Scrapers, Fanart organisation et al.
This could be deemed 'optimisation layer'

5) Then we get down into the REAL freaky world... 'it IS adjustable, but the only people wanting to adjust it have a specific and niche reason to deviate from the norm',effectively customisation of logic.... i.e. Specific RegEx's,
This could be deemed 'customisation layer'

I believe with careful consideration (and the obvious compromises in some cases), you can hit 70% of use cases with the first layer of settings, 20% with layer 2, 5% with layer 3 etc.

A well designed UI will steer the novice to configure the basics, but still offer the advanced user enough depth to get to the nerdy stuff... all without the UI every looking like a 1001 options nightmare.


Finally, and this is usually a polarising topic.... a 'configuration wizard' MIGHT be helpful. Media Center has one, and it does a fair job.

My worry about an external configuration app is this....

it's not "wrong" to have one. But... it can sometimes be an escape route from having to fix a poor UI in the first place. If XBMC's goal is to become more consumer centric (I have no idea if that IS the goal) then I'd argue that fixing areas of the existing UI would be the right way forwards rather than 'it sounds tricky, let's use a native app instead'.
I'm not saying the current UI is bad by the way, just interested in how it might evolve and improve. There is NOTHING more educating than giving your remote control to your partner and asking them to make a playlist for the party tonight. It rapidly teaches you that stuff isn't quite as intuitive as you THINK it is. We just get used to it and 'assume' it's ok.
Reply
#8
I too disagree with the OP, I like everything to be available in the program, where I can configure it all with my remote, like every other piece of my home theater system hardware.

And as a side discussion to the usefulness of certain settings, I find myself tweaking or changing most of them at least once in a while. Although there is a plethora of options, they seem pretty necessary to have.
Reply
#9
AnalogKid Wrote:I do agree with not wanting 1001 options all available in the UI at any one time, but that's not the same as making them accessible via the UI.

I think it's really a case of 'granularity' or 'depth of settings' that is the issue... and it ends up being a matter of personal opinion where in the hierarchy certain settings should lie.

For me, I think the following:

1) All settings should have initial values that are designed to make XBMC work 'out of the box'

2) Any setting that has a reasonably high likelihood of needing modification in order to make XBMC work should be available in the UI with a high priority. That is to say, if there's a chance the default XBMC setting may not work on some systems (i.e. wrong language or no keyboard or similar) then it needs to be high priority in the UI.
This could be deemed 'configuration layer'

3) Then we have the 'commonly adjusted features'. So let's say running at 800x600 would be fine for all systems - the fail safe approach.... but we reasonably expect one of the first options a user will 'adjust' is the resolution.
Followed by audio output etc. The defaults will work, but the user might want better ;-)
This could be deemed 'adjustment layer'

4) Then we get into the slightly more technical realm... Video Acceleration? Specific Scrapers, Fanart organisation et al.
This could be deemed 'optimisation layer'

5) Then we get down into the REAL freaky world... 'it IS adjustable, but the only people wanting to adjust it have a specific and niche reason to deviate from the norm',effectively customisation of logic.... i.e. Specific RegEx's,
This could be deemed 'customisation layer'

I believe with careful consideration (and the obvious compromises in some cases), you can hit 70% of use cases with the first layer of settings, 20% with layer 2, 5% with layer 3 etc.

A well designed UI will steer the novice to configure the basics, but still offer the advanced user enough depth to get to the nerdy stuff... all without the UI every looking like a 1001 options nightmare.


Finally, and this is usually a polarising topic.... a 'configuration wizard' MIGHT be helpful. Media Center has one, and it does a fair job.

My worry about an external configuration app is this....

it's not "wrong" to have one. But... it can sometimes be an escape route from having to fix a poor UI in the first place. If XBMC's goal is to become more consumer centric (I have no idea if that IS the goal) then I'd argue that fixing areas of the existing UI would be the right way forwards rather than 'it sounds tricky, let's use a native app instead'.
I'm not saying the current UI is bad by the way, just interested in how it might evolve and improve. There is NOTHING more educating than giving your remote control to your partner and asking them to make a playlist for the party tonight. It rapidly teaches you that stuff isn't quite as intuitive as you THINK it is. We just get used to it and 'assume' it's ok.

Some fantastic points made especially about handing the remote over to the wifey Smile

RandomXBMCUser Wrote:I too disagree with the OP, I like everything to be available in the program, where I can configure it all with my remote, like every other piece of my home theater system hardware.

And as a side discussion to the usefulness of certain settings, I find myself tweaking or changing most of them at least once in a while. Although there is a plethora of options, they seem pretty necessary to have.

As it now there is NO way you can configure XBMC via just remote. So regardless, the point is that it needs to be configurable from external or internally and step away from hand jamming lines in scattered xml files. It doesn't matter to me how I'm just proposing the idea. How to do it is just semantics.
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
External Configuration app "like MP"0