What's so bad about SageTV's UI?

[jbarr]

To me, this is probably SageTV's most annoying "feature". Fortunately, there is a bit of logic to it, and worst-case, hitting "Home" will get you back to the main page. But that doesn't solve the "problem" that, as you pointed out, everything is page-centric. Maybe that's why most stock UI screens have a "back to previous menu" entry that takes you hierarchically back? The simple fact is that if you customize the menus, you can very easily break the stock hierarchy. But the good thing is that once you have used SageTV for a while, you CAN configure the menus to be much more efficient based on your usage patterns. A workaround--yes. A solution---no.

[sainswor99]

Again, the emphasis being on the user to configure the product. Great for tweakers and enthusiasts; not so great for the mass market. If Henry Ford had sold consumers an engine, some wheels, and a wrench, I'm not sure the automobile would have ever taken off

Stu

[bcjenkins]

LMAO

[jbarr]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

Again, the emphasis being on the user to configure the product. Great for tweakers and enthusiasts; not so great for the mass market. If Henry Ford had sold consumers an engine, some wheels, and a wrench, I'm not sure the automobile would have ever taken off

Stu

I respectfully disagree. The stock UI provids all the necessary navigation paths to be effective for the mass market. Specifically, you really never need to use the Back button because there are "return to previous menu" links on pretty much every page. Yes, there are a some inconsistencies, and yes, there is room for improvement, but the stock UI really does provide fully navigable paths.

And that's my whole point: The stock UI is fully functional for the novice user. Can it stand improvement? Of course! But the key is that unlike many competitors, the user has the option of re-configuring if he wants to.

To expand upon your analogy, it would be like Henry Ford selling you a car that works as advertised. It's not a fantastic car, but it drives well, offers basic features, and to the seasoned driver, it could stand improvements. Henry also includes a toolbox and a map to a local auto parts store that provides upgrades that you can install yourself. (Oh, and the parts happen to be free!) If you want to really trick out your car, have at it. Install new features. re-build the engine. But if you don't want to hassel with the mechanics, you still have a fine car that will get you from point A to point B.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by jbarr

I respectfully disagree. The stock UI provids all the necessary navigation paths to be effective for the mass market. Specifically, you really never need to use the Back button because there are "return to previous menu" links on pretty much every page. Yes, there are a some inconsistencies, and yes, there is room for improvement, but the stock UI really does provide fully navigable paths.

And that's my whole point: The stock UI is fully functional for the novice user. Can it stand improvement? Of course! But the key is that unlike many competitors, the user has the option of re-configuring if he wants to.

To expand upon your analogy, it would be like Henry Ford selling you a car that works as advertised. It's not a fantastic car, but it drives well, offers basic features, and to the seasoned driver, it could stand improvements. Henry also includes a toolbox and a map to a local auto parts store that provides upgrades that you can install yourself. (Oh, and the parts happen to be free!) If you want to really trick out your car, have at it. Install new features. re-build the engine. But if you don't want to hassel with the mechanics, you still have a fine car that will get you from point A to point B.

The bad things about analogies is that they don't always translate as expected; my point (I'll admit I sacrificed clarity in an attempt at humor) is that the product evolved from early prototypes (the first horseless carriages were stick-driven engines on wheels, with a buckboard seat) to a mass-marketable car with a lot of extras and features right out of the gate.

From WikiPedia:

Model A:

The original Ford Model A, also called the Fordmobile, was the first car produced by Ford Motor Company, beginning production in 1903. Dr. Ernst Pfenning of Chicago, Illinois became the first owner of a Model A on July 23, 1903. 1,750 cars were made from 1903 through 1904. The Model A was replaced by the Ford Model C during 1904 with some sales overlap.

The car came as a two-seater runabout or four-seater tonneau model with an option to add a top. The horizontal-mounted flat-2, situated at the amidships of the car, produced 8 hp (6 kW). A 3-speed planetary transmission was fitted, a Ford signature later seen on the Ford Model T. The car weighed 1,240 lb (562 kg) and could reach a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h). It had a 72 in (1.8 m) wheelbase and sold for a base price of US$750. Options included a rear tonneau with two seats and a rear door for $100, a rubber roof for $30 or a leather roof for $50.

There were a lot of feature releases between the original Model A and the Model T; the Model T is regarded as being the first real mass-marketed vehicle.

Model T:

The Ford Model T (colloquially known as the Tin Lizzie and the Flivver) was an automobile produced by Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company from 1908 through 1927. The model T set 1908 as the historic year that the automobile came into popular usage. It is generally regarded as the first affordable automobile, the car which "put America on wheels"; this was due to some of Ford's innovations, including assembly line production instead of individual hand crafting, as well as the concept of paying the workers a wage proportionate to the cost of the car, so that they would provide a ready made market. (Ford also attempted a 'buy on time' program to aid sales, resembling that of the German Kdf-Wagen [the forerunner of the Volkswagen Beetle]. Ford's plan was not a success, either.) The first production Model T was built on September 27, 1908, at the Piquette Plant in Detroit, Michigan.

There were several cars produced or prototyped by Henry Ford from the founding of the company in 1903 until the Model T came along. Although he started at the Model A, there were not 19 production models; some were only prototypes. The production model immediately before the Model T was the Ford Model S [2], an upgraded version of the company's largest success to that point, the Model N. For some reason, the follow-up was the Ford Model A and not the Model U. Company publicity said this was because the new car was such a departure from the old that Henry wanted to start all over again with the letter A. As it happens, the first Plymouth car (1928), built by competitor Chrysler Corporation, was named the Model U.

What's the point of this? I feel like the current version of Sage is a Model S Ford (the predecessor to the Model T). As you pointed out, a decent car; not great, but decent. In my analogy, an engine with wheels. It'll get you where you want to go, but the opinion of most of the support community (just based on my reaction to most of the posts here) is that the onus for improvement is primarily the responsibility of the consumer (thanks for the toolbox and the free parts store; how do I know this won't void the warranty?).

Granted, any user opinion in this forum is a bit like walking into a Hot Rod convention and asking Ford to provide a different paint color. However, SageTV is a bit mum about directions they are planning to take, so one has to extrapolate that it will continue to be more "bolt-on" customizations.

Ain't bad; could be better.

Stu

[jbarr]

Unfortunately, I have to admit that my perspective comes from one who LOVES to tweak, so maybe I shouldn't try to represent or second-guess the SageTV community at large!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

Sorry to re-open old wounds, but I just read this post by Andy in another thread (don't bother reading the whole thread; just got pissy at the end). However, I thought this post was an excellent example of why the SageTV interface needs some improvement:

From http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/show...0&postcount=36



I appreciate the difficulty in developing a 10-foot GUI, but this is a classic example of code evolution; navigation is approached on a screen-by-screen basis, rather than a holistic approach to the entire application (eg., for most pages, Left does "this", but on some pages, it does something else). Do I have an easy answer? No, but I do think that at some point the app needs to be reviewed for consistent usage in order to become more efficient.

Stu

The only way to "fix" it, is to disable the left key on menus where it currently goes "up". Really that's the only way to fix the inconsistency of the Left button functionality.

And IIRC, that's the way Sage used to be, but then the left-goes-up functionality was added due to popular demand by the user community.

In fact, that's one thing SageMC does differently, left doesn't go up, and IIRC (again) there were a number of complaints from people missing the left-goes-up functionality.

The moral is, you can't please everyone. I myself have found that I like the Back functionality of Sage, I've gotten used to it, and I use it explicitly in places. There are times where it comes in very handy.

Most of the time though, through normal navigation, Back does go up, at least in my experience.

[src666]

Originally Posted by stanger89

The only way to "fix" it, is to disable the left key on menus where it currently goes "up". Really that's the only way to fix the inconsistency of the Left button functionality.

Actually, thats just dead wrong. And it typifies the "tweaker" mentality - i.e. what would I tweak to make it work within the framework of what's already there. "The only way to fix it" - are you absolutely sure of that?

The other approach, and I believe the correct one, is to sit down with a complete list of SageTV's core capabilities, and design an interface that exposes the most important functionality to the most users, with the minimum user effort. From there, compromises can be made - the 80/20 rule is unavoidable, especially with a feature set as rich as SageTV's.

But frankly I bristle every time I see someone say "just change it" or "install the dynamic menu plugin" or god forbid "open SageTV Studio and build your own". That's not the right answer for the larger market. Might be a FINE option for you, but you aren't the one that Sage has to please. It's my wife. And the guy who's just getting into this whole "PVR thing". And HIS wife. And so on.

Even if it were easy to dig into the STV to make any but the most minor change (and it isn't), the main problem with the tweaker resonse is with updates. Maybe you enjoy being a software maintenence engineer/regression tester for Sage, but most of the market won't.

It's just time for them to start scraping the barnacles off of the barnacles, until they get down to the hull again, and then build it so that it integrates and works well for the novice, and looks better than a circa 1999 web app. And maybe they can come up with a better answer than "disable the left button" while they are at it.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by src666

Actually, thats just dead wrong. And it typifies the "tweaker" mentality - i.e. what would I tweak to make it work within the framework of what's already there. "The only way to fix it" - are you absolutely sure of that?

No, actually you're the one who's "dead wrong". I was not suggesting anyone in this thread do this on their own. I was explaining one of the only options to fix the inconsistency of the left button (ie how the Sage devs would have to "fix" it.)

Currently Left goes up a menu, essentially everywhere it's possible for it to do so.

The other approach, and I believe the correct one, is to sit down with a complete list of SageTV's core capabilities, and design an interface that exposes the most important functionality to the most users, with the minimum user effort. From there, compromises can be made - the 80/20 rule is unavoidable, especially with a feature set as rich as SageTV's.

And you think they haven't done that?

But frankly I bristle every time I see someone say "just change it" or "install the dynamic menu plugin" or god forbid "open SageTV Studio and build your own".

I never said that.

You do realize though that customizations and plugins are the only way to bridge the gap between providing something that works well for most people, and something that's exactly what a specific individual or small group wants.

That's not the right answer for the larger market.

Who's to say who their largest market is.

Might be a FINE option for you, but you aren't the one that Sage has to please. It's my wife. And the guy who's just getting into this whole "PVR thing". And HIS wife. And so on.

Even if it were easy to dig into the STV to make any but the most minor change (and it isn't), the main problem with the tweaker resonse is with updates. Maybe you enjoy being a software maintenence engineer/regression tester for Sage, but most of the market won't.

It's just time for them to start scraping the barnacles off of the barnacles, until they get down to the hull again, and then build it so that it integrates and works well for the novice, and looks better than a circa 1999 web app. And maybe they can come up with a better answer than "disable the left button" while they are at it.

For the record, "disable the left button" is my idea, not Sage's.

Also, I see a lot of people claiming they're part of Sage's "largest market" who can't possibly know that, they just assume they are, and assume that Sage should change to meet their needs. While in the mean time, some of the other members have made suggestions on how to tackle the issues raised, only to be greeted with the "I don't want a plugin" response, and blown off.

And so far, I've only seen one really good post (by Halstead) explaining something wrong with Sage's navigation and explaining why. Most other posts have been nebulous "I don't like the interface" or "The interface needs an overhaul" type posts.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Also, I see a lot of people claiming they're part of Sage's "largest market" who can't possibly know that, they just assume they are, and assume that Sage should change to meet their needs. While in the mean time, some of the other members have made suggestions on how to tackle the issues raised, only to be greeted with the "I don't want a plugin" response, and blown off.

And so far, I've only seen one really good post (by Halstead) explaining something wrong with Sage's navigation and explaining why. Most other posts have been nebulous "I don't like the interface" or "The interface needs an overhaul" type posts.

Actually, I'm a little offended by that. I thought I gave some specific examples of what I see are issues with consistency in the navigation, particularly in areas of newer functionality; I also gave some preliminary ideas (call them a verbal design sketch; never did draw them out) of some alternate choices for navigation. To have those (and several other good comments) summarily dismissed as not being descriptive enough is, frankly, insulting. We're not SageTV developers; we're consumers, attempting to give feedback on areas of a product that we see needs improvement.

There are some legitimate reasons for not wanting plugins or customizations; primarily, continued support when the core product does change. I've also heard some decent arguments for not making changes to the core, but I still think that the stock UI can be improved and NEEDS improvement. You may differ in your opinion, but in all honesty, it doesn't matter what you or I think, because Sage is going to do whatever they please (that's the one lesson that I have learned from this discussion).

[bcjenkins]

Since this is a user forum, has anyone written SageTV to ask if a UI rewrite is in their future?

There are a few indications to me that they are going after a larger market, which will be the plug and play crowd.

Originally Posted by Narflex

SageTV Announces Support for AMD LIVE!(TM) Home Cinema and Home Media Server

The HD Extender I saw at CES should open the doors to the less technically inclined. Which means: People will want this to be easy to use, intuitive, and (yes) aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Whether or not they will start off that way, or have to play catchup remains to be seen. The product today is not meant for the masses, it will be.

B

P.S. I didn't mention the announcement of the Mac software http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20190

Hopefully they realize that Mac users tend to be very picky about function, flow, ui integration with the OS, etc.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

Actually, I'm a little offended by that. I thought I gave some specific examples of what I see are issues with consistency in the navigation, particularly in areas of newer functionality; I also gave some preliminary ideas (call them a verbal design sketch; never did draw them out) of some alternate choices for navigation. To have those (and several other good comments) summarily dismissed as not being descriptive enough is, frankly, insulting. We're not SageTV developers; we're consumers, attempting to give feedback on areas of a product that we see needs improvement.

Sorry, you're right, the one post stuck out in my head, but yes you've posted some specific examples.

At the same time, you're still the exception, 90% of complaints about the UI/navigation aren't any more specific than "it's bad". src666's post was exactly that, just a non-specific "it needs to be redone" complaint.

Very few have been willing/able to explain what needs to change and why.

Also I think a lot of people combine "taste" and "useability" in their complaints. The two are very different things. Any real useability issues should definitely be worked on. But I think most of the complaints are ones of taste, which is a much greyer area.

There are some legitimate reasons for not wanting plugins or customizations; primarily, continued support when the core product does change.

True, but some of the best products out there are the ones that are built on or at least support plugins:

MyHTPC/Meedio
J River Media Center
Windows MCE
MythTV

That's really one of Sage's greatest strengths is it's support of customizations and plugins.

I've also heard some decent arguments for not making changes to the core,

A total UI redo would break all current customizations (at least those that aren't full STVs.

...but I still think that the stock UI can be improved and NEEDS improvement.

First thank you for mentioning specific things that need work.

I see your point about the inconsistency between the TV areas and the media areas.

You may differ in your opinion, but in all honesty, it doesn't matter what you or I think, because Sage is going to do whatever they please (that's the one lesson that I have learned from this discussion).

I really don't think you could possibly know what Sage will do from this discussion. Andy has (IIRC) made a couple comments about specific things, but other than that there's been no official word from SageTV on any of this.

Nobody outside SageTV knows what's on tap for V7 or whatever the next major build is.

[src666]

Originally Posted by stanger89

At the same time, you're still the exception, 90% of complaints about the UI/navigation aren't any more specific than "it's bad". src666's post was exactly that, just a non-specific "it needs to be redone" complaint.

First off, you should know by now that not every single point raised in a reply applies specifically to the post being quoted. I don't believe I accused you of saying "tweak it". But the fact remains that that is just about the most common response to those who raise the interface issue. My statements were perfectly valid relating to the topic, and specifically the responses made on this thread.

I've made plenty of suggestions in the past - I just don't feel the need to rehash them all every time the issue comes up. Just as I don't expect you to rehash every point you have made in every posting.

Regarding the "left button" consistency question, your response was that the only way to fix it was to disable it. That's not the only way to fix it. It's ONE way to "fix" it, specifically it's the way to fix it without redesigning, or at least rethinking, the overall design and pattern to navigating SageTV's functionality. My suggestion is to redesign the system so that it is consistent.

Yep, you are exactly right that my _last_ post was "it needs to be redone". As to me claiming to be the "larger market" - I didn't. I claimed to be part of the market. My wife is also part of the market. The kids are also part of the market. My friends are also part of the market. And we all have the same core needs, which the SageTV product fills, but the current interface obscures sometimes.

More to the point, my wife, the kids and my friends all dislike the "out-of-the-box" experience with Sage. If it wasn't for SageMC, I would still be fighting the battle in my house.

Yes, SageTV is "tweaker's paradise". But it's not "user's paradise".

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by src666

More to the point, my wife, the kids and my friends all dislike the "out-of-the-box" experience with Sage.

My kids love it, they think it's brilliant and don't find it difficult at all. My daughter's quite smart for an eight-year-old but all the same...

I also think it's bizarre that people think the whole back-button thing is a problem. Context-sensitive functions are not at all rare, every remote I've seen has buttons that perform different functions depending on context.

[jominor]

Originally Posted by src666

More to the point, my wife, the kids and my friends all dislike the "out-of-the-box" experience with Sage. If it wasn't for SageMC, I would still be fighting the battle in my house.

Shrug. I have the complete opposite experience. Everyone who's seen Sage has had no problems understanding it out of the box.

You have a circle of friends that share you taste and I have a circle that share mine.

Who's right? Both of us? Neither?

Sage's interface is fine.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by jominor

Shrug. I have the complete opposite experience. Everyone who's seen Sage has had no problems understanding it out of the box.

You have a circle of friends that share you taste and I have a circle that share mine.

Who's right? Both of us? Neither?

Sage's interface is fine.

Taste.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

He said nothing about taste; he indicated that the stock UI obfuscates certain feature functionality. His friends and your friends may like things to be difficult, but the issue isn't taste. It's consistency in design.

The interface is NOT fine. It works, but it could be better.

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

He said nothing about taste; he indicated that the stock UI obfuscates certain feature functionality.

Perhaps opinion would be a better word than taste...I don't think the UI obfuscates anything. It's very simple. That some people find it difficult is unavoidable.

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by rickgillyon

Perhaps opinion would be a better word than taste...I don't think the UI obfuscates anything. It's very simple. That some people find it difficult is unavoidable.

I might buy opinion as the term du jour. As for obfuscation, four characters come to mind: 5309 How is that intuitive?

And since we're attempting to be more precise in our language choices, I probably shouldn't have used the term "difficult" in my last post. "Inconsistent" is a better term for what I've been trying to convey; sorry about that.

[rickgillyon]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

As for obfuscation, four characters come to mind: 5309 How is that intuitive?

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, 5309 is supposed to be obscure. Those are unsupported extras, and meant only for the tweaker-geek. The guys who want the simple out-of-the-box interface are absolutely not likely to be looking for that, are they?

And...inconsistent? Or context-sensitive?

[MeInMaui]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

"Inconsistent" is a better term for what I've been trying to convey;

I wonder if it might be a worthwhile exercise to create a table that lists all of the commands and their function in each screen of the default UI. It might help to shed light on where the inconsistencies lie. It would also help everyone involved tangibly see what the issues are so they don't become lost in rhetoric. Once the specific issues are identified in an objective manner, then realistic suggestions for a solution can be submitted to Sage. Just a thought.

Aloha,
Mike