[constrictor]

I am a long time XBMC user since the days of it actually being on the Xbox. My current setup is a dedicated HTPC running recent nightlies of XBMCbuntu. I use the Neon skin, and have my library stored in MySQL. My media is stored on a remote server with two RAID5 arrays totalling 12 TB of useable space.

From a straight local media standpoint, I love XBMC. It is the foundation that my wife and I use to watch all of our movies and almost all TV shows. I love to show it off when we have guests over and people are always amazed by its slick interface and ease of use.

For the past few years, about every couple of months or so, I get a bug in me to try to get more out of XBMC, and I venture into the Add-Ons section and try some of the internet video feeds, or some other applications. Most recently I setup the ROM Collection Browser.

I am able to get all of these Add-Ons working fine. That is not my problem.

My problem is that I believe XBMC's biggest strength is it's gorgeous and easy to use interface. When I have guests over, they are not amazed that I have access to all of this media on my television. They are amazed at how well its all integrated. It DOESNT look like Im using a computer to playback all of this stuff.

However, when I use the Add-Ons, I have to find a submenu in the main menu and then when I get into each add-on (for example the Fox News plug-in) the UI is primitive and ugly. This happens to every video Add-In I've tried. Yeah, I can change the list view to something else, but there is never an option to get the UI looking as slick and easy to use as browsing my local media.

I actually still have my 1st generation modded XBOX with an ancient version of XBMC on it. That Xbox has many different Xbox games loaded on the internal drive and I have many emulators for NES, SNES, MAME, etc on it. In that XBMC, there is a Programs section, I go there, and it shows the emulators with a nice little icon. I click on the icon, and each program launches as you would expect it to. No drama.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in all of my research into XBMC, its current state leaves a lot to be desired with these third party plug-ins. Why don't they integrate more tightly with the skin? Why do I have to navigate submenus from the main menu to get to the feed I want? When I do get into the feed, why is it that it looks like Im looking at a basic list of text that I have to choose from?

Are there plans to make these add-ons just as user friendly and cosmetically beautiful as XBMC can be with local media? Maybe Im using the wrong skin, or maybe there is some critical part of the setup that I am missing, but for me, I don't like any of the third party stuff. It makes me feel like Im stepping out of the great user experience that I've come used to with XBMC. A lot of people on here seem to like them...why? Help me understand what I'm missing!

[PatK]

As a long time user with your experience, in your question, it's clear you know the answer... "I don't like any of the third party stuff" is the telling statement. I guess it's a vent towards the lack of integration with 3rd party and XBMC which could be looked at from either side as the villain. You might get a lot of people agreeing with your assessment, but I'm not one..

For starters, XBMC is something amazing... it's prime "raison d’etre" is media collections, at this time all other functions are additions. Imagine for one instance there was no add-ons at all. Most of us would still be using it as the best way to handle our personal collections, some of us like having the weather as an extra for the HTPC not only for the information imparted, but something a little less visually demanding.

The fact that XBMC programmers have understood that providing hooks for 3rd party additions, is really an acknowledgement that the HTPC world is changing and the era of smart TV's, online streaming is part of this world now, An open source project like XBMC has quite a few hurdles, least of which is programming manpower and available dollars. Better to supply as much information to outside developers who can add to the project through add-on code, and it's through this path that users get excited at the potential of what could be; but if the add-on isn't well handled, we get deflated and rail on XBMC developers unfairly. The add-on system designed seems to allow a level of relativity stable programs through the official repository, there's another layer outside in custom repositories in which even more exciting things are happening... but as we stray from the main, so does some of the arguments you mentioned come to fore.

XBMC is a project in transition.

[artrafael]

Some skins, including the default Confluence, allow adding shortcuts to add-ons on the home page, so you don't have to drill down menu layers to get to your favorite add-ons. For example, when I tab over to VIDEOS, I can select the PBS, Hulu or YouTube add-ons with a single click. Likewise, on the MUSIC tab, I can launch the Pandora add-on with a single click. These add-on shortcuts are displayed with nice icons on the home page and give the appearance that they are an integral part of XBMC.

Given that the add-ons are mostly created outside of the XBMC development team and provide access to content outside the XBMC ecosystem, I think they mostly do a pretty good job of providing a relatively seamless interface with the core XBMC functions. For example, for Hulu access from XBMC, BlueCop's Hulu add-on provides a much more seamless experience (and is much more functional) than having to launch Hulu Desktop as an external application.

Tighter integration for add-ons probably would require cooperation/participation by the content providers themselves (along the lines of Boxee or Roku), which likely isn't going to happen with an open source project such as XBMC. If access to external content were to be limited to just those providers who wish to be fully intergrated with XBMC, the choices would be severely limited (basically nonexistent). The beauty of XBMC is that independent developers can easily "snap-on" functionality that serves both mass and niche markets. Just scan through the forums and see the requests for add-ons to national or ethnic content that have been fulfilled: Indian, Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese (the famous "I'm so lonely in the USA" thread).

Given the choice between access to only official, fully and tightly integrated content or the agility to have new content sources added independently, I would opt for the latter, even if it means that some of these add-ons may not be as tidy as the XBMC application is as a whole. After all, I get to choose which add-ons I want to use. If one doesn't meet my standards of quality, I could choose not to use it or I could contact the author and suggest how his/her product could be improved (e.g., better UI integration with XBMC).

[constrictor]

PatK, and artafael,

Great posts, I really enjoyed reading your comments, and for the most part, I agree with them. It is clear to me that these third party add-ons are just that...add-ons and they dont represent the core mission statement of XBMC. I also understand that some skins have better functionality due to allowing shortcuts from the main menu.

It just seems to me that online content is where the industry is headed. More and more TVs have these streaming apps integrated into the TV. Google is working on GoogleTV which aims to integrate the massive amount of online streaming info into the living room. Devices like the Roku and Boxee are getting more and more common.

I *LOVE* XBMC and have never seen another product on the market that even comes close in terms of local media playback. I was just curious to see if I was missing something. As I said earlier, Ive been using XBMC for a long time, and this is one area where it clearly has a way to go in terms of user friendliness.

And who knows, maybe there is so much fragmentation out there between all of the different online sources, that there is nothing the XBMC developers could do even to make it better. After all, the first generation of GoogleTV failed to capture even a small part of the market and many considered it to be a failure, so if Google couldn't get it right, how should I expect an open source community to do it?

I guess it all comes down to how well XBMC already works for local media. As I said earlier, every couple of months, I go exploring the Add-Ons and I always come away disappointed. Im not blaming anyone, just observing that XBMC has already set the bar very high, that I assumed the user experience for online add-ons would be better.

[Ned Scott]

It's up to the add-on makers to use something beyond default views. It also depends on if the online services have metadata to feedback into the views to make them look more like normal library entries.

I do know what you mean, though. It's hard to put in to words, but most video add-ons just don't... shine. Perhaps there are things we could look at, like adding more standard view layouts or some kind of flexibility tweaking.. It can be challenging though, because we want these add-ons to work and flow when people change skins.

[MassIV]

Nice read.

Got me thinking. The people making the plugins aren't the skinners, but the ones that make the plugin (yes, Mr. Obvious).

But could the skinners decide how the plug-ins look within their skin?

I know this probably can't be done for all. But lets say, big ones like youtube ect.
Have them pre-make an awesome layout. I mean, the default images used in the youtube plugin for "search" ect.
Are not the most awesome i've ever seen when it comes to integration. They don't fit in with the rest of the skin.
Compared to like the settings menu of reFocus. Which i consider skin porn.
And you could go so much further in pimping out a plugin then just the icons.

A plugin could for example check the active skin, for the existence of a layout (youtube.xml) and if not use it's own art.
To, from a visual standpoint, create better integration of the plug-ins.

[Ned Scott]

Indeed, skinners and add-on makers can work together for better display and even some really slick integration of add-ons. To make it more "automatic" I wonder how practical it would be for add-ons to be able to define certain things, like a search icon, and then each skin has a search icon that matches that skin and will return it for the add-on.

I don't know a lot about skinning, but I'll mention it to the devs if they haven't seen this thread yet.

[bossanova808]

It's up to the add-on makers to use something beyond default views. It also depends on if the online services have metadata to feedback into the views to make them look more like normal library entries.

I do know what you mean, though. It's hard to put in to words, but most video add-ons just don't... shine. Perhaps there are things we could look at, like adding more standard view layouts or some kind of flexibility tweaking.. It can be challenging though, because we want these add-ons to work and flow when people change skins.

Having only done one music addon, I am by no means an expert but for me at least a few things would be very handy

1. For addons wanting to do a more advanced UI - Standardised font sizes (+ fonts themselves?) that all skins must offer - meaning if you DO put the effort into doing your own UI, it can at least roughly work in every skin without text flowing out of boxes etc. Just say 5 basic sizes of two basic fonts (1 serif, 1 sans, say) - as a minimum would probably mean a lot more people would knock up a WindowXML knowing that it would at least be functional in other skins. I found it quite offputting that my WindowXML looked fine in Confluence but immediately looked thoroughly broken in basically every other skin

2. For your vanilla plugins, a few minimum views with defined id numbers/names would be great - you basic list types, a thumbnails views - all skins should have these (actually they probably do) - but they should also have a defined scheme for triggering them from the plugin (e.g. the youtube plugin calls view 500 for thumbnails view, but it's definitely a not-supported hack as far as I can tell, and since there's no standard for the names/numbers, skinners maky very well use 500 for some other view, and you've got immediate breakage). .... at the very least a wiki page with a list of views and there standard IDs would help, plus a supported mechanism for addons to trigger a view change if they really want/need to present in a certain way (which I know 'should be up to the skin' but I think there's simply too much fragmentation as a result of this, and more duplication of effort that is really required etc).

Well, some initial thoughts, anyway!

[constrictor]

I do know what you mean, though. It's hard to put in to words, but most video add-ons just don't... shine. Perhaps there are things we could look at, like adding more standard view layouts or some kind of flexibility tweaking.. It can be challenging though, because we want these add-ons to work and flow when people change skins.

Yes, this is exactly my point! I am happy to see the responses to this thread as I wanted to carefully choose my words so that people didn't think I was critical of the efforts put forth so far by the devs who have worked so hard to make XBMC as great as it is.

I would love to see more cooperation between the add-on devs and the skinners. I think right now this area of XBMC is its biggest opportunity. XBMC dominates the local media market, but the on-line streaming market is still very much up for grabs. As impressive as Boxee originally looked, it has not yet grabbed a foothold in this market. Google TV didn't get the job done in its first iteration and from what I've read, they're ready for round 2.

Im putting my money on XBMC eventually getting it right, I am just over-eager to see it happen sooner than later!