can the complaining about the naming the labels later! Structure first
else you might as well throw it all away and nothing gets done.
So where the current proposed structure?
Martijn, current structure is in first post
Having considered this some more, if I was to start with a blank piece of paper then I'd go for a structure like this:
Quote:Device Output (I think these are important enough to deserve there own section & to be put at the top)
-> Video
-> Display (what is currently "Video output")
-> Processing (exisitng "Video Acceleration" with addition of De-interlacing settings currently only available via OSD)
-> Audio
-> PCM (split from "Audio output")
-> Passthrough (split from "Audio output")
-> DSP (future - maybe needed once Audio DSP Addons are in)
Media Playback
-> Videos
-> TV
-> Subtitles
-> DVD/BluRay
-> Music
-> Audio CDs
-> Game (future - maybe needed once Retroplayer is in)
-> Karaoke
-> Accessibility
Media Views
-> Sources (future category)
-> Video
-> TV
-> Music
-> Weather
-> Video
-> Files
-> Library
-> Music
-> Files
-> Library
-> Pictures
-> Files
-> Slideshow
-> TV
-> General
-> Menu/OSD
-> EPG
-> Recording
-> Power Saving
-> Parental control
-> Client specific
-> Game (future - maybe needed once Retroplayer is in)
-> General
-> Files
-> etc
Add-ons
-> Check for Updates (date)
-> Install New Add-on
-> View Enabled Add-ons
-> View Disabled Add-ons
-> Install Add-on from Zip
-> Search for Add-ons
Services
-> General
-> UPnP
-> Websever
-> Remote Control
-> Zeroconf
-> Airplay
Appearance
-> Skin
-> Screensaver
System
-> Region (renamed from International)
-> Input Devices
-> Power saving
-> Internet access
-> Master lock
-> Debugging
Edited - missed a couple of things out...oops
(2015-03-12, 18:07)jjd-uk Wrote: [ -> ]Having considered this some more, if I was to start with a blank piece of paper then I'd go for a structure like this:
Quote:Device Output (I think these are important enough to deserve there own section & to be put at the top)
-> Video
-> Display (what is currently "Video output")
-> Processing (exisitng "Video Acceleration" with addition of De-interlacing settings currently only available via OSD)
-> Audio
-> PCM (split from "Audio output")
-> Passthrough (split from "Audio output")
-> DSP (future - maybe needed once Audio DSP Addons are in)
Media Playback
-> Videos
-> TV
-> Subtitles
-> DVD/BluRay
-> Music
-> Audio CDs
-> Game (future - maybe needed once Retroplayer is in)
-> Karaoke
-> Accessibility
Media Views
-> Sources (future category)
-> Video
-> TV
-> Music
-> Weather
-> Video
-> Files
-> Library
-> Music
-> Files
-> Library
-> Pictures
-> Files
-> Slideshow
-> TV
-> General
-> Menu/OSD
-> EPG
-> Recording
-> Power Saving
-> Parental control
-> Client specific
-> Game (future - maybe needed once Retroplayer is in)
-> General
-> Files
-> etc
Services
-> General
-> UPnP
-> Websever
-> Remote Control
-> Zeroconf
-> Airplay
System
-> Region (renamed from International)
-> Input Devices
-> Power saving
-> Internet access
-> Master lock
-> Debugging
I like most of that, but I tried to keep the latest revision not having a multi-layered menu to avoid complication.
I love the idea of moving media management into the settings. As a first time user I found it very frustrating and overly complicated to get a media library up and running. In fact, I think it would be useful to offer users a media library FTE, to walk them through the media setup/management process.
(2015-03-14, 05:06)pragma Wrote: [ -> ]I love the idea of moving media management to the settings. As a first time user I found it very frustrating and over complicated to get a media library up and running. In fact, I think it would be useful to offer users a media library FTE, to walk them through the media setup/management process.
That's the main drive behind the idea - when I started using XBMC I felt the same. I actually uninstalled it and went back to Media Browser for around six months. I then did the needed reading to understand, as well as joining on here. Small changes like the suggested will, at least in my opinion, provide first time users with the ability to 'flow' through the settings and configurations in a more ordered and logical manner.
That also applies to experienced users - weather is a good example.
1) It's not a service but I'm sure most people would view it as such.
2) If it's not a Service, but viewed as one, then why is Services called Services.
3) If the above are both true then either rename Services or redefine the purpose of that area to incorporate Weather.
Again, all of this is for the user and not for the benefits of the developing team.
(2015-03-14, 01:57)Piers Wrote: [ -> ]I like most of that, but I tried to keep the latest revision not having a multi-layered menu to avoid complication.
Ok, let me put forward for my 4 major arguments for doing it that way.
1st - For any good layout, the user shouldn't be presented with too many options at any one time, it's this that adds to complication and potentially confusion in my view.
2nd - I wanted to try and keep the titles of the settings categories concise, this is best done by having a hierarchical structure using multi-layered menu's, so you don't need lengthy titles like Picture Slideshow or Video Acceleration.
3rd - If media types requiring their own settings such as Games are added to Kodi, then having multi-layers will mean that any categories added to any single view can be keep to a minimum, otherwise you make an already long list in Media Management for example even longer.
4th - Adding a multi-layered structure needn't mean more clicks if that is the concern, for example:
Your layout (ignoring future options)
Quote:Media Management
Music Library
Music Lists
Picture Library
Picture Lists
Video Library
Video Lists
Picture Lists being in the middle requires most button presses, as with top item selected going up will move you to the bottom of the list.
So most button presses here is 3, so for example:
Music Library -> down -> Music Lists -> down - > Picture Library -> down -> Picture Lists
With my layout
Quote:Media Views
Music
-> Files
-> Library
Pictures
-> Slideshow
-> Files
Video
-> Files
-> Library
Picture Files is also 3 button presses, so:
Music -> down -> Pictures -> select -> Slideshow -> down -> Files
(2015-03-14, 06:49)Piers Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-14, 05:06)pragma Wrote: [ -> ]I love the idea of moving media management to the settings. As a first time user I found it very frustrating and over complicated to get a media library up and running. In fact, I think it would be useful to offer users a media library FTE, to walk them through the media setup/management process.
That's the main drive behind the idea - when I started using XBMC I felt the same. I actually uninstalled it and went back to Media Browser for around six months. I then did the needed reading to understand, as well as joining on here. Small changes like the suggested will, at least in my opinion, provide first time users with the ability to 'flow' through the settings and configurations in a more ordered and logical manner.
That also applies to experienced users - weather is a good example.
1) It's not a service but I'm sure most people would view it as such.
2) If it's not a Service, but viewed as one, then why is Services called Services.
3) If the above are both true then either rename Services or redefine the purpose of that area to incorporate Weather.
Again, all of this is for the user and not for the benefits of the developing team.
1) It's not a service but I'm sure most people would view it as such. - Yes it can be viewed as a Service but not in the sense we use the word, Weather would be better classed as a form of Media with the addon being the scraper, so belongs under Media Management if anywhere.
2) If it's not a Service, but viewed as one, then why is Services called Services - Services as the term is used in Settings are in actual fact Network Services.
3) If the above are both true then either rename Services or redefine the purpose of that area to incorporate Weather - Since these are Network Services perhaps abbreviating to "Network" rather than "Services".
(2015-03-14, 15:08)jjd-uk Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-14, 06:49)Piers Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-14, 05:06)pragma Wrote: [ -> ]I love the idea of moving media management to the settings. As a first time user I found it very frustrating and over complicated to get a media library up and running. In fact, I think it would be useful to offer users a media library FTE, to walk them through the media setup/management process.
That's the main drive behind the idea - when I started using XBMC I felt the same. I actually uninstalled it and went back to Media Browser for around six months. I then did the needed reading to understand, as well as joining on here. Small changes like the suggested will, at least in my opinion, provide first time users with the ability to 'flow' through the settings and configurations in a more ordered and logical manner.
That also applies to experienced users - weather is a good example.
1) It's not a service but I'm sure most people would view it as such.
2) If it's not a Service, but viewed as one, then why is Services called Services.
3) If the above are both true then either rename Services or redefine the purpose of that area to incorporate Weather.
Again, all of this is for the user and not for the benefits of the developing team.
1) It's not a service but I'm sure most people would view it as such. - Yes it can be viewed as a Service but not in the sense we use the word, Weather would be better classed as a form of Media with the addon being the scraper, so belongs under Media Management if anywhere.
2) If it's not a Service, but viewed as one, then why is Services called Services - Services as the term is used in Settings are in actual fact Network Services.
3) If the above are both true then either rename Services or redefine the purpose of that area to incorporate Weather - Since these are Network Services perhaps abbreviating to "Network" rather than "Services".
I know the answers, my comments are how it most likely appears to the end user and not to a developer
(2015-03-14, 14:56)jjd-uk Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-14, 01:57)Piers Wrote: [ -> ]I like most of that, but I tried to keep the latest revision not having a multi-layered menu to avoid complication.
Ok, let me put forward for my 4 major arguments for doing it that way.
1st - For any good layout, the user shouldn't be presented with too many options at any one time, it's this that adds to complication and potentially confusion in my view.
2nd - I wanted to try and keep the titles of the settings categories concise, this is best done by having a hierarchical structure using multi-layered menu's, so you don't need lengthy titles like Picture Slideshow or Video Acceleration.
3rd - If media types requiring their own settings such as Games are added to Kodi, then having multi-layers will mean that any categories added to any single view can be keep to a minimum, otherwise you make an already long list in Media Management for example even longer.
4th - Adding a multi-layered structure needn't mean more clicks if that is the concern, for example:
Your layout (ignoring future options)
Quote:Media Management
Music Library
Music Lists
Picture Library
Picture Lists
Video Library
Video Lists
Picture Lists being in the middle requires most button presses, as with top item selected going up will move you to the bottom of the list.
So most button presses here is 3, so for example:
Music Library -> down -> Music Lists -> down - > Picture Library -> down -> Picture Lists
With my layout
Quote:Media Views
Music
-> Files
-> Library
Pictures
-> Slideshow
-> Files
Video
-> Files
-> Library
Picture Files is also 3 button presses, so:
Music -> down -> Pictures -> select -> Slideshow -> down -> Files
That makes sense, but going a step further for full re-organisation could mean merging Files and Library(Slideshow for images) options. And as far as too many options, that's what settings levels are for. Expert option would provide the full set etc. [edit] Again, I'm trying to see this from the end-user point of view, especially first time users and older people (I ran this option with my parents who are both in their early 70s).
IMHO Settings levels are a big PITA. Great idea, until you start counting the forum posts where they trip people up.
I can't find where to set my [whatever] options
Have you set expert settings level?
No how do I do that
Etc etc
(2015-03-15, 00:12)nickr Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO Settings levels are a big PITA. Great idea, until you start counting the forum posts where they trip people up.
I can't find where to set my [whatever] options
Have you set expert settings level?
No how do I do that
Etc etc
What would your suggestion be for a sensible and more intuitive structure?
(2015-03-15, 00:12)nickr Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO Settings levels are a big PITA. Great idea, until you start counting the forum posts where they trip people up.
I can't find where to set my [whatever] options
Have you set expert settings level?
No how do I do that
Etc etc
I think the issue isn't that the settings levels don't work, but that we put too many settings as needing the advanced level. I've been meaning to post about this and spew out some ideas, but my basic thinking is:
- Simplify the levels. Basic, Standard, Expert. Basic exists for when you want to lock settings levels.
- most settings should be "standard".
- only "dangerous" (to be defined) should be "expert".
- levels should be less about what settings are common or not, or even if they're complex or not.
Alternatively, leave the levels as they are but make "Advanced" the default view, which is what OpenELEC now does. I would still merge "Advanced" and "Standard" at that point, though.
(2015-03-15, 01:51)Piers Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-15, 00:12)nickr Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO Settings levels are a big PITA. Great idea, until you start counting the forum posts where they trip people up.
I can't find where to set my [whatever] options
Have you set expert settings level?
No how do I do that
Etc etc
What would your suggestion be for a sensible and more intuitive structure?
Sorry yes my post wasn't all that constructive was it? But what Ned said is pretty sound I think.