avus m3 Wrote:I thought from reading the general consensus was that you guys didn't want the UI cluttered with more options. Lets face it...most people don't like to or know how to edit xml's. I think it would broaden the user base a lot if it was easier to configure. I know MySQL is already there. Please go read the thread about it and you will see people having issues set it up. It's not as simple as just adding a line to your advancesettings to get it to work.
As for the web interface, I think that idea is great! Platform agnostic but effectively and simply gets the job done. Wouldn't be too hard to setup either it seems like. I would still consider that an external app (utility) to get it done...just saying.
I do agree with not wanting 1001 options all available in the UI at any one time, but that's not the same as making them accessible via the UI.
I think it's really a case of 'granularity' or 'depth of settings' that is the issue... and it ends up being a matter of personal opinion where in the hierarchy certain settings should lie.
For me, I think the following:
1) All settings should have initial values that are designed to make XBMC work 'out of the box'
2) Any setting that has a reasonably high likelihood of needing modification in order to make XBMC work should be available in the UI with a high priority. That is to say, if there's a chance the default XBMC setting may not work on some systems (i.e. wrong language or no keyboard or similar) then it needs to be high priority in the UI.
This could be deemed 'configuration layer'
3) Then we have the 'commonly adjusted features'. So let's say running at 800x600 would be fine for all systems - the fail safe approach.... but we reasonably expect one of the first options a user will 'adjust' is the resolution.
Followed by audio output etc. The defaults will work, but the user might want better ;-)
This could be deemed 'adjustment layer'
4) Then we get into the slightly more technical realm... Video Acceleration? Specific Scrapers, Fanart organisation et al.
This could be deemed 'optimisation layer'
5) Then we get down into the REAL freaky world... 'it IS adjustable, but the only people wanting to adjust it have a specific and niche reason to deviate from the norm',effectively customisation of logic.... i.e. Specific RegEx's,
This could be deemed 'customisation layer'
I believe with careful consideration (and the obvious compromises in some cases), you can hit 70% of use cases with the first layer of settings, 20% with layer 2, 5% with layer 3 etc.
A well designed UI will steer the novice to configure the basics, but still offer the advanced user enough depth to get to the nerdy stuff... all without the UI every looking like a 1001 options nightmare.
Finally, and this is usually a polarising topic.... a 'configuration wizard' MIGHT be helpful. Media Center has one, and it does a fair job.
My worry about an external configuration app is this....
it's not "wrong" to have one. But... it can sometimes be an escape route from having to fix a poor UI in the first place. If XBMC's goal is to become more consumer centric (I have no idea if that IS the goal) then I'd argue that fixing areas of the existing UI would be the right way forwards rather than 'it sounds tricky, let's use a native app instead'.
I'm not saying the current UI is bad by the way, just interested in how it might evolve and improve. There is NOTHING more educating than giving your remote control to your partner and asking them to make a playlist for the party tonight. It rapidly teaches you that stuff isn't quite as intuitive as you THINK it is. We just get used to it and 'assume' it's ok.