SageTV talk on GreenButton

[Wormhoudt]

Originally Posted by stanger89

OK, here's your first lump, but take it as a serious question. I look at all that, and all I see is "useless" fluff. By "useless" I mean it doesn't serve a purpose, doesn't add functionality. It might look cool, but it does it really improve the experience? I know I always disable the core animation system in Sage because I find the animations get in the way.

I agree that what I am talking about is useless fluffy stuff. Maybe save the Crossbar menu that makes quite a few things available from the home page. But some people put a lot of stock in those things. Me included.

It's the same reason that my next desktop will be an iMac. Not for OSX. The first thing Ill do is install Vista. Ive been a software developer for well over a decade. I love the platform. Apple just happens to make the sexiest PC hardware. And so I'm willing to pay a premium even though I get the Dell EPP discounts through work, making the Lattitude line crazy cheap.

I do realize that those sorts of things are just not important to some people. probably most people. My wife thinks I am crazy for wanting an iMac when a comparable Dell through work will be half as much.

[Ryokurin]

I think a better way to put it all is that the SageUI isn't ugly, its just a bit dated. Personally, I've been into HTPCs since around 2001. Back then the landscape was quite different. You had Meedio's precursor, MyHTPC, Showshifter, SageTV and a few linux products and thats it. SageTV 1.x was pretty bad looking, and back then you paid for listings, but even then most people thought it had the most promise out of windows based HTPC products 2.0's redesign basically put it above the pack back then.

Today, there's more competition and each has their own distinct strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that looking at looks alone, not functionality SageTV does look so 2002. People are attracted to flash and glitter, and the others have plenty of that. No doubt Media Center 2005, and Vista MCE blows everyone else out of the water in looks, I can't stand the fact that you cant assign multiple drives to store movies. And while Mediaportal is much easier to skin, it STILL isn't all that stable, and doesn't offer much more than SageTV could do for years.

The biggest struggle is just to get people to actually look at it, instead of dismissing it just because of looks. I think its more of people just using that as the excuse not to buy it, because everything else is somewhat free.

[Wormhoudt]

Originally Posted by kingwr

VMC was a big upgrade to the UI, not only in look and feel, but in capability through the implementation of MCML. MCML provides a language for developers to integrate plug-ins into VMC utilizing the graphics, navigation, scrolloing, animation, and reflections functions built into VMC. This provides for a very consistent interface across VMC and third-party plug-ins.

I think MCML or more aptly WPF is the basis for the strength of the VMC interface. I think its overly declarative nature raises the price of admission for most plugin developers though. Microsoft never realsed an SDK that included prepackaged controls that matched the rest of the interface. Developers were left to create their own or recreate Microsofts. To me this was a bad choice. Imagine if every Winforms project had to recreate all of the control functionality (button, combobox etc.). Add to that the fact that to do anything really cool with WPF you are now going to need multiple tools. You will need expression blend to do the animations and then back to VS to do all of the declarative code to place the animations and kick events back to code. It's a big mess currently. I think it has really great potential for the future of interface development, but right now what a developer has to learn to use it is quite a bit.

[Polypro]

Let's not forget that this *is* "SageTV". I guess some product owners would go the copycat route just to make sales...Sage doesn't strike me as the type of company that would be happy providing a VMC clone/knock-off. If you're looking at VMC right now, and would just like to run the Sage installer and have the same thing re-appear on your screen when finished...I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied. They should put out some "factory" developed themes and allow the blue transparent OSD to be changed to a different color (Clear or Black...I like dark themes). They should come up with their own *unique* twist to the UI to keep it SageTV...not a VMC knock-off (SMC).

P

[tmiranda]

Way too much over analyzing going on here. The bottom line is that when most people first see Sage the UI is not appealing and first impressions count.

[bialio]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Way too much over analyzing going on here. The bottom line is that when most people first see Sage the UI is not appealing and first impressions count.

If we don't analyze the situation how can we ever fix it? Obviously there's only so much we as the community can do for the default STV - although the lack of themes for the default STV is a bit puzzling. But for current and new STV's this is valuable information.

I want to see Sage succeed, if for no other reason than I've sunk thousands of dollars into my system.

[bcjenkins]

Originally Posted by bialio

I want to see Sage succeed, if for no other reason than I've sunk thousands of dollars into my system.

Bingo!

[Mitch G]

I think the first impressions point is the key bit here. And telling people that if they spend a few hours customizing it then they'll love it just doesn't work.

Instead, if the default SageMC set up was actually one of the fancier themes (like Center Stage) that also includes some of the most loved plugins (e.g. miniguide) instead of the basic theme, then people would immediately get a feel for how powerful and customizable it all is.
So, instead of having to load SageMC and then finding plugins and loading those and hoping you are doing it correctly and finding the right theme and then customizing the main menu and not realizing you should save the menu file and then losing all your work and then having to start over ....
Come up with a single package that pulls together some of the better examples of what SageMC has to offer so that the new user can load one package and have something tres cool.
In fact, maybe throwing up a dialog box the first time someone starts up SageMC that points out the customizability, etc. would be a nice touch as well.

I would think creating this beginner's SageMC package (it could be called SageVirgins or something) would not require much work by some of you savvier folks, although I'll admit I don't really know. But, I do know that it would go a long way to addressing these "Sage's GUI sucks" type of questions.

Just a thought,


Mitch

[Ryokurin]

You also have to remember how certain styles can be trademarked. Granted, Microsoft is not as bad as Apple is for going after people who copy their style, but it still is very much possible if someone did develop something that was its spitting image. A legal fight on whats acceptable and what isn't is likely something that SageTV would want to avoid (This also is why feel that things like built in comskip haven't been added to the core personally)

There can even be hard feelings among open sourced projects. I remember when SageMCE was new and there were some mediaportal people upset because some of the then popular mp skins were ported over. They didn't realize that the developer had actually gotten permission from the original developer first. This brings up three issues. 1. it has to be original, but that hole has been fished. 2. It has to be legally clear. 3. If it is a port from something like open source, how would compensation take place.

[popechild]

As everyone agrees, look and feel is largely subjective, though that doesn't mean that some looks arean't more attractive to more people than others. For Stanger and others who are frustrated by the lack of specific constructive criticism, I think there are two issues.

1. It's really, really hard for the typical user to pinpoint what it is about something that they don't like or would do differently when it comes to design. (That's why they call it "feel.") I know I don't like the standard UI at all. It works and is functional, and I don't know if I would say it's ugly exactly, but it's just kind of utilitarian. I can say that pretty easily. What I can't do is tell anyone how I would fix it, because I'm useless when it comes to design. (If I had the tools and tried to design my own, it would be even worse, because I have no design skills or understanding.) What I CAN do is look at an alternate design and say if I like it better or not. And the sole reason might just be that it's "prettier" or "cooler" or something equally un-utilitarian and hard to define.

Think of it like a car. I know I think a ferrari is better looking than a toyota. I couldn't begin to tell you what I'd change to a toyota to make it look better though. If I had to try, I'd probably look at a ferrari and try to figure out what qualities it has and assume that if I changed the toyota in those ways, it would look better to. (That's why you get so many people comparing Sage to VMC - I can't tell you how to make Sage look better specfically, I can tell you I like VMC's look better though, so if I HAVE to tell you what to do to Sage to make it look better, I'll probably just list things I've seen in VMC.) This is obviously not the right way to design a UI, and it's why the only real solution is to lock some gifted UI designers in a room somewhere and let them use their imagination to come up with something better.

2. For a "functionality" person (like Stanger and so many others who have done so much to give Sage the best functionality of any app out there), it's frustrating to not be able to pin down exactly what does or doesn't work about "look and feel." But it usually has exactly zero to do with functionality at all. I guarantee Sage would see a huge boost in interest if the next release added zero functionality, but provided a UI that was much more attractive to as large a group of people as possible. That's just the way it works, for better or worse.

Final note - I don't understand all the concern about whether or not changes to the UI would upset people who like the current UI. That's the beauty about UI - it has very little to do with underlying functionality. As a few folks have already mentioned, there's no reason Sage couldn't keep the current UI exactly as is, but provided 1 or 2 (or more) alternate "built-in" UIs for those with different tastes. It's actually quite surprising to me that they haven't done this already. As evidenced by the continued, on-going talk about Sage's poor UI (particularly from those who don't use Sage, possibly as a result of it), it's the one area where Sage isn't heads and tails above all the competition out there. Unfortunately, it's also the one area people notice first.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by popechild

Think of it like a car. I know I think a ferrari is better looking than a toyota. I couldn't begin to tell you what I'd change to a toyota to make it look better though. If I had to try, I'd probably look at a ferrari and try to figure out what qualities it has and assume that if I changed the toyota in those ways, it would look better to.

Great analogy.

Originally Posted by popechild

As a few folks have already mentioned, there's no reason Sage couldn't keep the current UI exactly as is, but provided 1 or 2 (or more) alternate "built-in" UIs for those with different tastes. It's actually quite surprising to me that they haven't done this already.

What I referred to above as "Skins", just like the old standby Windows Media Player. On the setup menu, you have options to choose from: "Classic Sage", "SageMC 200x", and maybe even a few of the beautifully-done SageMC UI's that people have created, if they were willing to give Sage permission to make them part of the program. All you do is pick the one you want. And then, some of the smarter folk here (love you guys) would eventually figure out a way to make a "Custom UI" STVi plug-in, and it would just just be added to that list of choices. We'd probably end up with a whole thread up in the "Customizations stickys" that would be installable UI's, and when installed, would just show up as a choice in that setup list. Some, since they would be user-created and not sanctioned by Sage, would probably end up being spitting images of other programs (VMC, etc.)... with enough changes to keep the lawyers away, of course.

And then, of course, when we get to the point where we have individually-customizable User settings, everyone in the family could choose their own UI skin.

[popechild]

Okay, so like I was saying, I probably couldn't explain exactly why, and it has nothing at all to do with functionality, but this Aeon interface for XBMC is SICK!

I'd never heard of it until reading through the GB link in the OP. Sage should seriously try to hire that guy to re-design their UI. In the meantime, if anybody wants an opinion of what they should try to emulate in their user-customized Sage UI efforts, that's it! I would pay good money for a way to use that UI with Sage.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Wormhoudt

I think MCML or more aptly WPF is the basis for the strength of the VMC interface.

But how many 3rd party apps for VMC are worth using. Topping the list is MyMovies and it still isn't done in MCML. Next on the list is probably one of the Weather addins. That is probably as far as most people go - that's as much as I have ever used in MC.

[QueOnda]

Originally Posted by popechild

Okay, so like I was saying, I probably couldn't explain exactly why, and it has nothing at all to do with functionality, but this Aeon interface for XBMC is SICK!

I'd never heard of it until reading through the GB link in the OP. Sage should seriously try to hire that guy to re-design their UI. In the meantime, if anybody wants an opinion of what they should try to emulate in their user-customized Sage UI efforts, that's it! I would pay good money for a way to use that UI with Sage.

I wonder if they are using Vector images to give them a cleaner look. http://www.signindustry.com/computer..._v_raster.php3

Could java or sage do use vector? What do they use now??RASTER?

[IanJohnson]

I think slick, pretty UI, though not functional is very important for this type of application. Extra animation, transparency, etc may be useless fluff in regards to function, but not not for aesthetics. I don't need all of those extras in my email application, but watching TV, movies, looking at my photos, and listening to music are aesthetic experiences. If I am using Sage (or any other HTPC application) I am looking to be entertained. I want to get some pleasure in using the UI itself, through appreciating its beautiful design and ease of use.


The expectation that Apple and Microsoft is creating is that state of the art technology should be represented by state of the art design. Disney's home of the future exhibit is covered in monitors, TVs and touchscreens running VMC and Lifeware. It certainly wouldn't have the same futuristic "wow" factor with the default Sage UI. It feels much more like I am using something cutting edge if it looks cutting edge.


Ian

[tmiranda]

IMHO the path to great design is not via a committee. You need to have one or two brilliant people with a vision and let them loose.

The Ferrari - Toyota analogy is absolutely right, great design is not something you can quantify and measure but you know it when you see it. I can guarantee you that Ferraris are designed by a very small group of people and the Toyotas are designed by committee.

I'm not a huge Apple fan, but they do have great design. Their products almost always look fantastic, make a great first impression and are easy to use. And yes, the price you pay for taking such design risks is that sometimes you end up with an big disaster.

[Ryokurin]

Originally Posted by popechild

Okay, so like I was saying, I probably couldn't explain exactly why, and it has nothing at all to do with functionality, but this Aeon interface for XBMC is SICK!

I'd never heard of it until reading through the GB link in the OP. Sage should seriously try to hire that guy to re-design their UI. In the meantime, if anybody wants an opinion of what they should try to emulate in their user-customized Sage UI efforts, that's it! I would pay good money for a way to use that UI with Sage.

That skin is still in Alpha as well and has been for a while. I think a beta is promised sometime this month. It still kind of leads into the problem that some people have with SageMC (which could probably pull off a similar version to the Media portal copy of Aeon) it is in some ways more limited than the normal skin.

[kingwr]

As is often repeated by the Microsoft guys on TGB, Vista Media Center is not designed for the avid DIYer and home media center enthusiast. It is designed for the 95% of the folks that got it with their new computer in the Vista installation and think it is cool. That is where they concentrate their effort (music, photos, online content).

But, I guess I just like that kind of interface - clean, simple, and graphically stunning. One thing I can't stand about the default SageTV interface is all those tool icons on the side. I mean, without a mouse, on a TV screen with a remote, who uses those? It just reflects the kind of thinking that went into the interface.

I think customizable skins is a great idea, but the stock, out-of-the-box interface needs to be designed to aesthetic please and satisfy 90% of the people who (like me) don't want to spend alot of time customizing it.

It reminds me of the Philips Pronto remotes. I bought one planning on making all kinds of cool interfaces. But, as so many things, I never had time to make cool interfaces and to this day, 10 years later, I am still using the stock buttons and interface on my Pronto remote.

When's 7.0 coming out and is UI improvements high on the list of new features?

[nick_l]

Originally Posted by popechild

As everyone agrees, look and feel is largely subjective, though that doesn't mean that some looks arean't more attractive to more people than others.

I guarantee Sage would see a huge boost in interest if the next release added zero functionality, but provided a UI that was much more attractive to as large a group of people as possible. That's just the way it works, for better or worse.

Boy, do I agree with that statement!

Final note - I don't understand all the concern about whether or not changes to the UI would upset people who like the current UI. That's the beauty about UI - it has very little to do with underlying functionality. As a few folks have already mentioned, there's no reason Sage couldn't keep the current UI exactly as is, but provided 1 or 2 (or more) alternate "built-in" UIs for those with different tastes.

but, unfortunately, that is the problem with the Sage architecture, an STV isn't really a skin but "basically" a mini program that runs on top of sage. then, when you have plug ins, they have to be written for each stv, then imported into that stv, etc. Editing or changing anything requires using Studio (ugh)! In my opinion (for whatever its worth), it's an antiquated, confusing mess.

The first thing I would do is to drop the STV and STVi names. They are just confusing to new (and not so new) users. Did you ever go to the downloads section? the description for the STV packages is "SageTV Application Packages (STV files) that may be
loaded as complete STV replacements." um, yeah, that clears it up.

Second is to remove the interdependence of STV files and "functionality plug ins". If it want to use the IMDB plug in, for instance, I don't want to be concerned that I am not using the proper version of the proper STV with the proper support. A plug in should plug in to the Sage program, not the "skin". Skin designers can then write a standard set of components to support all plug ins (with customization as necessary, but at least one wouldn't have to worry about matching up version numbers.

Third, make STV files more like real skins. There are thousands of talented, moderately talented and not so talented graphic artists out there making skin files for various programs. Just Google for winamp skins, there are thousands. It's not hard to do using a well published set of rules and some graphics programs. I know sage skins would be more complex than simple winamp skins, but I'm saying that they could be easier to create, and there is strength in numbers. The more people creating the better the perceived value.

I'm not trying to criticize just for the sake of criticism, but just to ad my opinion to try to help the long term viability of a program that I have really come to rely on every day.

BTW, that Aeon interface is, indeed, SICK. I would give big money for My sage install to look that polished and professional.

Nick

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by nick_l

BTW, that Aeon interface is, indeed, SICK. I would give big money for My sage install to look that polished and professional.

Yep that is indeed the best looking skin I've seen and would also pay for it!