[topfs2]

By the way--interestingly, just after posting my above response, I was looking through the File Manager (in System) for the first time, on something completely unrelated. And I noticed that on opening it, it has an "Add Sources" button to set that setting So clearly someone at some point in the past thought it would be beneficial to get the source settings at least *close* to the System settings! lol

Thats file manager sources, its not the same as video, music or picture sources.

Thanks for your responses and arguments, which I'll gladly agree are thoughtful and interesting. I genuinely find it fascinating that some people, such as yourself, would prefer to have something like sources settings, which are a fundamental part of XBMC, in a place other than the main settings window. I do fully understand your point--that you want to see that settings window where the *things that it controls* are first encountered and used--but that seems completely counterintuitive to me. As you say, perhaps there is some kind of cultural paradigm at work there!

I did want to address your example of shuffle/repeat song settings: The thing about that, though, is that that is an *individual* setting. Every song will be different; some you will want to repeat, but some you won't; sometimes you'll want to shuffle songs, sometimes you won't. Because it's *changeable*, I agree with you that it makes much more sense to have that setting available to you at the moment you're deciding to play something, and that it would be totally out of place in a Settings dialog box.

However, most settings in music playback programs that are *global* (i.e., which likely won't change from time to time depending on your mood), such as where your music is located (look at iTunes!), are indeed almost always located in some sort of "Settings" or "Preferences" window.

And to continue your analogy, that's my point. If video/music source settings were *temporary*--if it made sense to change them at the time of playback depending on what your preference was at that moment--then I would completely, 100% agree with you that it would make more sense to set up sources at the point of playback, or at least in that area (as it is now).

But because XBMC library sources are relatively *permanent* settings--you generally set them once initially, and then that's it, unless you change drives or something--then it makes much more sense to me to have them in the settings window along with the other relatively permanent settings.

Well I can admit that the shuffle example was a bit to drastic The sources are far more permanent which is why its harder to put it into the appropriate apartment.

IMO I find iTunes and similar players doing it a bit annoying too. For example rhythmbox only supports one folder in settings, but you can add as many folders you wish in menu, but you have no way to manage them. This makes me think that it would have been nice to have a "sources" tabb in the left with all the added sources, then you get a natural filtering if you wish to show only songs from source A, you click source A and can use the right pane to further filter on artist etc. I keep both lossless and lossy versions on my HDD and I would have loved that type of filtering tbh, but alas no, I'm forced to only use the one type in my collection. I disgress a bit here but my point is that I actually find most apps handling the sources of media content somewhat iffy and they do so because its historically the way its done. I'm not sure if iTunes allows multiple sources or not but most linux based players do not from my testings.

Anyways, I do agree that one can get a bit lost and not find the source settings, this IMO is due to the fact that skinners use the return on media window entering. i.e. when you enter videos you will get back to where you where last, which is usually not in root. If you'd always return to root then a node with "sources" would always be apparent and you would never really get lost as you'd do "home"->"video"->"sources" to get to it.

This confusion gets even worse as most skinners want direct links to "movies" and such on home (which is kindof nice) but it would be better from a usability standpoint (NOT enthusiast usability) probably to only have "videos" and you'd get to the root of the library which have nodes "movies", "tv shows", "sources".

Interestingly enough both of the last paragraphs are what differs in android and iPhone as the former does as us and remember a lot more than iPhone which is far more explicit and force you to navigate the same path (even if a bit longer) every time to reach your goal. This is why iPhone is easier for new users as it forces them to learn, this is also why android is nicer for power users as they can get themselfs out no matter and it saves time.

Anyway, thank you very much for elucidating your opinions. I find "usability" issues very interesting in general

Same, usability and design is one of my majors and I discuss it as much as I can thats the only way to get perspective on things.

One question, btw--I am a little confused, when you say a poll would be useless because forum users "are not the real target audience". Who, then, is that audience? Aren't forum users (such as myself) the people who use XBMC for the most part?

He means that the forum users are just a small part of the ones who use XBMC. Second: only a small portion of the user who use this forum would find it's way to the appropiate poll. So a poll would be not representitive to what the users want.
Another point is what the skinner puts where. There are some fixed points however he can almost design everything as he sees fit.

Hehe, small portion is to put it mildly. I'd say insignificant

Last statistics update we had roughly 789.000 active and in used installs of xbmc. There are about 120 just forum readers per active forum member, I don't even know how many non-forum readers there are per forum reader but I bet that number is quite big too.

With this data one must assume that any vote done on forum would never scale to fit our target audience.

Finally, I have nothing against someone coding up and having source management in settings in extension to the on location management but I'd be very sad if we removed the explicit one in favour of doing it as boxee (in settings).

[topfs2]

wow shit, sorry for a long post. Feel free to ignore if I digressed a bit, usability discussions always makes me write lots

[canadave]

wow shit, sorry for a long post. Feel free to ignore if I digressed a bit, usability discussions always makes me write lots

LOL...no worries, I'm glad (and appreciate the fact) that you took the time to write out your thoughts in detail! It's a fascinating discussion.

Thats file manager sources, its not the same as video, music or picture sources.

oops :o Thanks for pointing that out!

Anyways, I do agree that one can get a bit lost and not find the source settings, this IMO is due to the fact that skinners use the return on media window entering. i.e. when you enter videos you will get back to where you where last, which is usually not in root. If you'd always return to root then a node with "sources" would always be apparent and you would never really get lost as you'd do "home"->"video"->"sources" to get to it.

This confusion gets even worse as most skinners want direct links to "movies" and such on home (which is kindof nice) but it would be better from a usability standpoint (NOT enthusiast usability) probably to only have "videos" and you'd get to the root of the library which have nodes "movies", "tv shows", "sources".

YES!! Yes!! Thank you!! This is EXACTLY what drives me nuts about the way it's currently set up; I just didn't know quite how to phrase it. That "getting lost" is exactly what happens to me--a lot. And the situation is made exponentially worse if you turn off the "Show parent items" setting (which is, ironically enough, in the Settings section).

What you describe is precisely why I thought it would be better off (and more intuitive) if the sources settings simply resided in the Settings section with the rest. Now, if you disagree and think it's more intuitive to remain in Videos area, then I'll concede that we're simply expressing personal preferences. However, I'm glad that we agree on the confusing setup of the way it is. That's the main thing I was trying to address (clumsily) and I'm glad someone else can express it more clearly than I could!

Finally, I have nothing against someone coding up and having source management in settings in extension to the on location management but I'd be very sad if we removed the explicit one in favour of doing it as boxee (in settings).

Well, as has been mentioned a few times, I think it sounds like the best idea would be to have it in both places so that people at both ends of the spectrum like us can both be kept happy I don't think it would contribute TOO much extra clutter having it in both spots.

[Shadowsoul]

Couldn't a solution be to simply change "Video" to "Sources" and handle all source management from there? If you always enter at the root level and have some kind of filter or something as simple as different icons for the type of data in the added sources (could probably alos move clean/import/export library to some context menu here).

It would make all source centralized and skinners could still put links to the different library views where they want to.

Just some food for tought.

As a side note, personally I agree that burying this in the settings section would just be confusing, it's way better having it where it is now.

[Mike Lowrey]

This confusion gets even worse as most skinners want direct links to "movies" and such on home (which is kindof nice) but it would be better from a usability standpoint (NOT enthusiast usability) probably to only have "videos" and you'd get to the root of the library which have nodes "movies", "tv shows", "sources".

Sounds like a usability hell! Overall a media center is to consume media easy isn't it? With this in mind browsing to Movies/TVShows by using only the Video Link @ home screen would be really annoying wouldn't it?

Some time ago i've modified the settings of Alaska to Hide the Video Tab because i only use TVShows and Movies which are in my databases and so i have no need for another tab in home which i never access.

The only problem which appeared was obviously that your are completely unable to Add further sources from these database views and although i understand your point i stick to canadave thinking in reference to the permanence of Sources.

From my understanding (and with the standard usage of TVShows and Movies in mind) Sources are global settings which aren't bound to a specific section(just think of new extensions to the db layout e.g. for games where should the Add Sources dialog be when you are using the db view?)
But it would probably be best to expose the Add Sources dialog just in both places instead of removing it from one to another.

[topfs2]

Sounds like a usability hell! Overall a media center is to consume media easy isn't it? With this in mind browsing to Movies/TVShows by using only the Video Link @ home screen would be really annoying wouldn't it?

From a performance (if I may call it that) standpoint the two are essentially equivalent. Either you do as in Confluence and reach videos and press down + left or right to hit movies/tv shows or you do as in alaska and the likes and have more items in the original lists and remove the "videos" node. In the end you'll most likely do about the same keypresses as if you where to go to videos and press enter and up and down to find the node you wished.

The best design (not that I'm a skinner so just dropping my opinion) is to do somewhat what confluence does, have a list with few items in the core menu and your supposed to go into "library" to find the extra stuff. The stuff which pops up around the menu in home is meant to facilitate faster access, such as favorite addons or recently added movies. Your still meant to go into videos if the fast access stuff isn't available. What confluence lacks (IMO) is that it shouldn't return in videos to last accessed path, it should ALWAYS return to root when you press videos. If you press movies or tvshows in the sublist underneath then sure, that could return. (you may substitute videos for music etc for examples in that media).

This would limit the navigational path to management as you can always explicitely do home -> videos -> sources and handle it there.

Some time ago i've modified the settings of Alaska to Hide the Video Tab because i only use TVShows and Movies which are in my databases and so i have no need for another tab in home which i never access.

The only problem which appeared was obviously that your are completely unable to Add further sources from these database views and although i understand your point i stick to canadave thinking in reference to the permanence of Sources.

IMO this is extreme enthusiast usage, the vast majority wouldn't go through the trouble to optimize it like that. We cannot have perfect usability and cater to every specific way a user may wish to do I say this without meaning you do anything wrong, I'm just saying we need to choose one which would fit most and can't cater for all others. I really think the way confluence does atm (with some more tweaks) ought to be very simple for the vast majority of users. Your suggestion kindof fails a bit on the users which doesn't really care about setting up the library all neat (there are many of these and they should still have ability to use the app ).

From my understanding (and with the standard usage of TVShows and Movies in mind) Sources are global settings which aren't bound to a specific section(just think of new extensions to the db layout e.g. for games where should the Add Sources dialog be when you are using the db view?)
But it would probably be best to expose the Add Sources dialog just in both places instead of removing it from one to another.

A source is not global across sections, a source is only global to an explicit section. boxee have removed this afaik and have sources completely global (you just add a path and it tries to deduce on its own the content). I personally much prefer each source being very much explicit to the content as I'm sure the vast majority have that organization at any rate (with the exception of movies and tv shows being in a single directory which is sane but not as how I have it). I doubt many users have music, videos and pictures in a single directory which is meant to be considered separate media types (videos can exist in picture folder but would then be pictures etc.)

[canadave]

Some time ago i've modified the settings of Alaska to Hide the Video Tab because i only use TVShows and Movies which are in my databases and so i have no need for another tab in home which i never access.

IMO this is extreme enthusiast usage, the vast majority wouldn't go through the trouble to optimize it like that.

I have to disagree again there, topfs2. For Mike, myself, my wife, and most "casual" users, all we want to do is use XBMC to simply play local movies, TV shows, and music files. I just want to be able to turn on my ATV2, press "Movies", choose one, and watch it. We're about as far from "extreme enthusiast" as you can get

In fact, when I started out with XBMC, I did the exact same thing Mike did, in terms of hiding the Videos menu item. The reason I did it was because, like him, all I wanted to do was have a "Movies" link, a "TV Shows" link, and a "Music" link; any other menu links were extraneous and confusing (with the exception of System and so on, which obviously I left in place).

Since I had a "Movies" and "TV Shows" link that I could use to reach my "videos" (all my video files) in the menu, it was confusing to then also have an additional "Videos" link in the same menu. And further confusing was the behaviour you mentioned once you go into the Videos section (the return-to-root-folder weirdness and such that you mentioned). So, I just hid the darned thing

Now, of course, I have video add-ons added, and I use the Videos section for that. But I just wanted to illustrate how for many people (non-developers), they want XBMC to just act as a simple tool that a completely non-technical person can use--to just click a "Movies" button, choose a movie, and watch it on TV.

[topfs2]

I have to disagree again there, topfs2. For Mike, myself, my wife, and most "casual" users, all we want to do is use XBMC to simply play local movies, TV shows, and music files. I just want to be able to turn on my ATV2, press "Movies", choose one, and watch it. We're about as far from "extreme enthusiast" as you can get

In fact, when I started out with XBMC, I did the exact same thing Mike did, in terms of hiding the Videos menu item. The reason I did it was because, like him, all I wanted to do was have a "Movies" link, a "TV Shows" link, and a "Music" link; any other menu links were extraneous and confusing.

Since I had a "Movies" and "TV Shows" link that I could use to reach my "videos" (all my video files) in the menu, it was confusing to then also have an additional "Videos" link in the same menu. And further confusing was the behaviour you mentioned once you go into the Videos section (the return-to-root-folder weirdness and such that you mentioned). So, I just hid the darned thing

Now, of course, I have video add-ons added, and I use the Videos section for that. But I just wanted to illustrate how for many people (non-developers), they want XBMC to just act as a simple tool that a completely non-technical person can use--to just click a "Movies" button, choose a movie, and watch it on TV.

Sorry, I was somewhat unclear. I meant the fact that he wanted to remove "videos" in the normal list as he never used it. That was the extreme enthusiast, fast access to movies I can see any user wanting in some shape or form.

And again, speed wise, going left a few times more (as in Alaska) or do left less times + enter + up down to find the node should really take almost the same timewise and I really don't see how it would confuse the casual user any more?

Its seems rather weird that a user wanting to watch a movie wouldn't go into "videos" to do so. Not arguing that if he _wants_ movies he would go to "movies" on home over "videos". This is also why I say the way confluence is done is good, there you still have the fast access but they are not _needed_. Many of my friends usually don't even go down the submenu and go to "videos" when they want to watch a movie, its a video after all. It depends a bit on the culture aswell. In Swedish there is no real difference in the word videos and movies (in swedish) so usually all types of videos is refereed to as videos and is the goto respons (actually makes differing between tv shows and movies (as is read as videos) somewhat confusing).

[canadave]

Its seems rather weird that a user wanting to watch a movie wouldn't go into "videos" to do so. Not arguing that if he _wants_ movies he would go to "movies" on home over "videos". This is also why I say the way confluence is done is good, there you still have the fast access but they are not _needed_. Many of my friends usually don't even go down the submenu and go to "videos" when they want to watch a movie, its a video after all. It depends a bit on the culture aswell. In Swedish there is no real difference in the word videos and movies (in swedish) so usually all types of videos is refereed to as videos and is the goto respons (actually makes differing between tv shows and movies (as is read as videos) somewhat confusing).

Ahh...and this is where I totally agree with you that it might very well be a cultural difference. In English (North America), there's a much stronger verbal/cultural difference between "video" and "movie". To me, a "movie" is something you see in theatres. So, "TRON:Legacy" is a movie, definitely not a video. A "video", to me, is almost an antiquated term referring to rental DVD's or VHS tapes. Even if I have the "movie" as a file on my NAS or hard drive, it will always be a "movie" to me, not a "video".

"Video" to most North Americans is a somewhat amorphous, not-very-well-defined term that can apply to lots of different things

It's amazing, actually, with all the subtle cultural/linguistic differences among the various peoples of the world, that XBMC succeeds as well as it does!

[Martijn]

Well let's face it. There are a lot of opinions out there. Xbmc isn't an easy of the self ready to use mediaplayer for the low level users. For that you want microsoft or Apple. Just a klick wizard at install and you're ready. A proper help file. However that's it. You can't do anything else. That's the beaty of xbmc. Sure you need to read a thing or two and the wiki isn't everything. Setting it up could be a pain in some cases. But the posibilities are almost endless. it is highly custimizable with a lot of features.And all this for free. Let's not forget about that. It takes a lot of time and effort to create something like this in i presume the spare time all the programmers have. So let's be glad that there is something like this out there.

[canadave]

We're all glad XBMC is available (for free!), and we all appreciate the hard work XBMC devs do. This thread is a conversation about a suggestion of a feature, not a complaint.

[canadave]

I just had another look through the process of adding sources, just to refresh my memory. I noticed something else about it that was counterintuitive for me (and, I suspect, for other novice users).

To add a source for your video content to create a library, you have to go to Video --> Files. This on its own is slightly counterintuitive to me, because the Library is something different from the pure video files that exist on the hard drive. To me, going to Files in the Video section is only what I'd do if I want to view my files.

But, let's pretend that's not an issue. Once I'm there, I see "Add Videos...", which is where you go to set up your sources. To me, the title "Add Videos..." is misleading. Yes, once I set up a source, I can then "add videos" to my library by choosing "Update Library". But technically, "Add Videos..." only lets me set up a source. I then later scan the source to "add videos" to the library, but that's a subsequent step. Really, "Add Videos..." should more properly be named "Add Video Sources..." As it stands now, it leads me to believe that if I click on "Add Videos...", I can directly select video files to add to my library from a list. Or, if someone's really clueless, it might be thought to let you add videos from the Internet (not so farfetched of a mistake, actually, since the "Videos" section is also where Internet video add-ons are located).

This all may seem minor, but usability issues are usually superficially minor anyway Look at how much research goes into simple things like the font used on highway signage...

I think that one simple change, from "Add Videos..." to "Add Video Sources...", would clarify things a great deal for new users. It's a subtle distinction, but one that I think affects immediate understanding of what's at hand.

[gabbott]

But, let's pretend that's not an issue. Once I'm there, I see "Add Videos...", which is where you go to set up your sources. To me, the title "Add Videos..." is misleading. Yes, once I set up a source, I can then "add videos" to my library by choosing "Update Library". But technically, "Add Videos..." only lets me set up a source. I then later scan the source to "add videos" to the library, but that's a subsequent step. Really, "Add Videos..." should more properly be named "Add Video Sources..." As it stands now, it leads me to believe that if I click on "Add Videos...", I can directly select video files to add to my library from a list. Or, if someone's really clueless, it might be thought to let you add videos from the Internet (not so farfetched of a mistake, actually, since the "Videos" section is also where Internet video add-ons are located).

This all may seem minor, but usability issues are usually superficially minor anyway Look at how much research goes into simple things like the font used on highway signage...

I think that one simple change, from "Add Videos..." to "Add Video Sources...", would clarify things a great deal for new users. It's a subtle distinction, but one that I think affects immediate understanding of what's at hand.

When I go to videos I simply see options for "Add source", not seeing anywhere it says "Add Videos..."

By default on an install, the option to show "add source" right in the root of the video section is enabled, so it's not like it is completely hidden.

[canadave]

I'm looking at it on OSX right now, which says "Add Videos...". I'm not near my ATV2, but I thought it said "Add Videos..." as well?

[gabbott]

I'm looking at it on OSX right now, which says "Add Videos...". I'm not near my ATV2, but I thought it said "Add Videos..." as well?

I'm looking at both a linux and windows install that show "add source" in the video section. Although they are both Dharma builds. I wiped my pre-eden build if for some reason it changed there.