New SageTV Interface

[Goodspike]

Originally Posted by jds23

To say "why change something that everyone is used to" is ridiculous at best, and all you have to do is read a few very recent official reviews of Sagetv to see what they mentioned.."THE UI needs improvement, not to mention an overhaul!" (not a direct quote, but the jist of it).

Those reviews are exactly what I was ridiculing. Software reviews are typically pointless. They don't learn the program, and they say stupid things. Software reviews are one of the reasons the vastly inferior Word program did so well.

I think there was a software review of Sage a a year or two ago that said it would only display in 480p.

I bet if the background color was made a lighter shade of blue, and the fonts were changed, the software reviewers would go nuts over it.

[Goodspike]

Originally Posted by JUC

jds23....well said.

simply put-If sage wants to attract new users, an updated UI is needed. SageMC is great and without it i would not be using sage, period. The standards UI did not pass the WAF and I'm assuming I am not alone.
Juc

I'd think WAF would be dependent on simlicity, which the current UI is.

The UI could be a lot worse. I don't have the latest versions of either PowerDVD or WinDVD, but their UI's totally suck. And Sage's UI is much better than MyHD's or Fusion's.

[GKusnick]

There seem to be two different notions of UI improvement being discussed here. Some folks, like stevech and sainswor99, are concerned with usability issues and accessibility to non-techies. These are valid concerns.

For others, "updating" the UI seems to mean "make it look cooler" without actually improving usability or adding any new functions. This is the area where I think it's reasonable to rely on third-party skins. There are some things that only the Sage devs can do, like implementing basic capabilities and improving core perfomance and stability, and as much as possible their limited time should be spent doing those things. (Go to one of the many threads on playback stutter, high CPU/memory usage, etc. and try suggesting that glassy icons and animated menus are more important.)

Another factor is that different users may disagree about what's "cool" or "spunky" or "up-to-date". And next year's fashion will likely be different than this year's fashion. Trying to stay on the cutting edge of hipness is a losing proposition and (in my opinion) a colossal waste of dev resources. Big companies like Apple have time for that sort of thing. Small companies like Sage don't.

Several of you have said that you wouldn't have bought Sage if not for the availability of custom skins. This is exactly right. It's not the coolness of the stock skin that sets Sage apart from the crowd. It's the customizability. If coolness is the goal, then the best solution is a wide range of third-party custom skins -- not an overhaul of the stock skin that might or might not end up being what you want.

[HawgGuy]

I find SageMC more attractive & fature-filled. But the original, standard Sage UI wins the WAF in my house hands down. After 11 years, I ain't gonna get a new wife :-)

[dealsdyker]

Maybe this is overly simplistic but why couldn't the other Sage UI add-ins be added as skins to the stock system? I'm with the other guy who said that the UI keeps sage from growing the customer base. There is "bling" factor here...

Wouldn't adding the other UI's as Skins that be having your cake and eating it too?

[sainswor99]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Not to pick on anyone, but Stu's post is a good example of both helpful suggestions and "useless" complaints:

Thanks (I think)

I'll try to respond in a brief fashion because I should really be working on something (instead of checking the forums incessantly). A couple of observations:

1. There seems to be a couple of very different definitions as to what constitutes UI: "eye candy", and navigational issues. Personally, I care less about eye candy, and care more about what I perceive to be issues with navigation, but I think the OP has indicated that he was really interested in changing eye candy. EDIT: Blast! Gkusnick caught my drift, and responded much too eloquently.

2. It seems impossible to have a discussion about SageTV without someone mentioning SageMC. I pose a hypothetical question: if SageTV were really as conducive to additional UI development as the SageMC enthusiasts describe, why is there only one viable alternative? I realize that there are several smaller plug-ins, and a few people have attempted to put together UI replacements (like SageMC), but SageMC seems to be the only one that has gained any ground.

3. There is also some disagreement about the target audience of SageTV. I don't work for them, so I don't know who they are pitching it to, but my own experience with computers and technical support leads me to believe that it's targeted toward an experienced PC user, someone who understands that there's a trade-off between polish and extensibility.

I wish I could give specifics as to what aspects of the menu I think are out-of-place, but I'm not sitting in front of my Sage system right now. I'll try to post more later, but in general, I think the grouping of navigational levels are very strange. SageMC (dang, I said it) does a much better job of simplifying the navigational interface (in my opinion) than the stock UI.

The usability mantra I try to design by is to make the user have to click as few times as possible to do something; using Sage, I feel like I'm always having to click through several layers of menus to get to the content I want. The one exception is Recorded Shows, but even to get to a specific episode (or to see what episodes are available) I have to scroll through several menus in folders to get there. I use the "hidden" features to help that out (why are these hidden, BTW?)

For example, if I want to listen to music, I have to click on Media Center, then click on music, then click on song name (assuming that I have that view selected by default), and hit play in order to play a playlist of songs. Why can't I just hit "play music" on the main screen to listen to a random selection of all my songs? Why can't I hit "play video" on the main screen and be taken to a screen showing me an abbreviated list of my most recently recorded tv shows, videos I imported, and any other video source (Google?)

I'm a visual person, and I wish I had the time to sketch out the ideas I've got, because I think text is a limiting medium; perhaps I will tonight.

[Goodspike]

Originally Posted by HawgGuy

I find SageMC more attractive & fature-filled. But the original, standard Sage UI wins the WAF in my house hands down. After 11 years, I ain't gonna get a new wife :-)

Between a new woman and a new skin for Sage, I think a new woman would probably be more exciting.

[Goodspike]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

For others, "updating" the UI seems to mean "make it look cooler" without actually improving usability or adding any new functions. This is the area where I think it's reasonable to rely on third-party skins. There are some things that only the Sage devs can do, like implementing basic capabilities and improving core perfomance and stability, and as much as possible their limited time should be spent doing those things. (Go to one of the many threads on playback stutter, high CPU/memory usage, etc. and try suggesting that glassy icons and animated menus are more important.).

I think it was in Version 5 they added "unsupported extras" to the setup menu. I wonder how hard it would be to have the basic program come with third party skins (with the developer's permission of course) and allow them to be setup via a simple menu item?

[blade]

Many of the little things such as not wanting standby in the menu or having an exit command can be easily taken care of with the dynamic menus.

I have renamed, moved, removed, and added menu items so they are more intuitive and located in more logical areas (to me at least). I'm happy with the functionality of the stock UI now that I've made a few changes to the menus. I don't think it needs a major overhaul just a little work on the menu layout and wording would go a long way. Throw in some fresher looking graphics and there's nothing else I'd really want changed.

[dealsdyker]

Originally Posted by Goodspike

I think it was in Version 5 they added "unsupported extras" to the setup menu. I wonder how hard it would be to have the basic program come with third party skins (with the developer's permission of course) and allow them to be setup via a simple menu item?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking but you said it clearer. Have a menu item in setup to change skins/UIs to the main stock "other" UI's out there.

Do that and now it is part of Sage to change the UI hopefully without much developer work. And the masses who don't like to tinker can flip to more eye-candy/bling without feeling like they had to open the hood.

[nick_l]

Ok, my two cents. Sage needs to impliment a way to easliy support skins. I know there are STV's and STVi's and blah blah blah but I think there needs to be an easy way for the community to change the look quickly and easliy. I think that STV's are a great benifit to Sage, but I would like to see updates/changes/tweaks to the gui separate from functionality updates/enhancements. Not every user knows or wants to spend the time learning studio, but many people have some sort of graphics progs at home or work and might want to try their hand at designing a skin. One of the things that made winamp so popular was the ability to easily design, import and change skins. Right now, changing the look of sage requires knowing about the forum, wiki, etc. Researching what an STV is (why cant they just be called plugins, btw), downloading and extracting it to the right folders, and so on. I think it would be nice to have an entry under setup entitled skins. Sage could come pre-loaded with a few defaults, which could be as simple as a few color changes, etc. Also setting up a "get more skins" option which would go out to a sage server and get thumbnails of other available skins, and allow dowloading and extracting of that skin automatically. Aside from a few small potential security problems, I think that would be a great selling point for those with marginal computer experience.

On the point of usibility, there are certainly some things that could be changed, and if Sage is willing to listen perhaps we can point out some things that arent to difficult to fix that new users might benifit from.

[nick_l]

Originally Posted by dealsdyker

Do that and now it is part of Sage to change the UI hopefully without much developer work. And the masses who don't like to tinker can flip to more eye-candy/bling without feeling like they had to open the hood.

Yeah, what he said! Glad to see Im not that only one with this idea.

[Mahoney]

I don't think it's unreasonable to offer the straight feedback to Sage that their UI is poorly organised, cluttered and not attractive in a world where the competition is producing UIs that are very intuitive, and very attractive. It's then their business what they do with that feedback. I don't really see it as an integral part of a customer's role to offer more than that. Nice for Sage if they have the time and energy to do so, of course, but this isn't open source software, where the only acceptable criticism is one that comes with a suggestion for fixing it (if not a fix!).

Thankfully SageMC saves me from having to use the standard UI, but I'd much rather be using a fully supported out of the box UI, because it's less of a hassle; SageMC is one more thing to upgrade and be aware of.

[flavius]

As I have said before: Sage is losing business because of this. It may be hard to quantify how much, but this discussion alone should make you guys at Sage weigh your options here.

1. The current default skin could live on as 'Classic'
2. Just finish SageMC (add hardware setup and stuff)

Nobody has asked for a redesign, IMHO, but simply for a better skin. I think we're talking man-month, not man-years for some serious improvement.

If there's no money for this available, well, then there isn't. I can live with SageMC.

[Alfiegerner]

Originally Posted by ybrew

OK, not a sage newbie, but I've been happy with pretty much stock out of the box setup.

I am running the webbrowser but nothing else.

What's so good about SAGEMC and how easy is it to setup?
Is there a dummies guide for it?

You can get the instructions from the thread.

Its very easy to set up.

Following a comment made above, I would not have switched to sage either if it were not for SageMC. I know this is a matter of taste but for me the stock UI is simply too ugly to use regularly.

Trying to be specific, off the top of my head I would say the background screen it too dark and the font(s) need updating. I know more could be said and will have a think about it the next time I use the stock UI. In principle though, no one in my family would use sage if there was no alternative to the OOB UI.

[Goodspike]

Originally Posted by Alfiegerner

I know this is a matter of taste but for me the stock UI is simply too ugly to use regularly..

I really have a hard time understanding comments like this.

I use Sage because of how it deals with tuners, how it records programs, how reliable it is, etc. They could make the UI pink and lime green and that wouldn't affect my willingness to use it, because I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at the UI.

Now features, like the exit button I mentioned, or how many menus you have to go through to get to something, that's a different matter. But pretty or ugly doesn't matter.

[src666]

Originally Posted by nielm

Just to give you an idea of what you are asking for here...
There are about 100,000 lines in the STV file defining about 32,000 user interface elements (studio widgets).

If we consider 1 user interface element=1 line of code (it could be considered to be more than that, some UI elements are simple, some are complex), and the average rate for designing, implementing, debugging and testing lines of code is 10 per day (studies vary from 5-20, but its the right order of magnitude), then the standard STV is the result of 15 man-years of work!

Ok, This is a back of the envelope figure, and completely inaccurate (show me a software metric that is!) but even if you divide it by 10, it is a lot and it does give an idea of how much work has gone into the UI, and how much work would be needed to do a complete redesign.

I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this (the word I wanted to use is probably not polite enough for the forum).

First, SageMC didn't take 15 man-years to write, so it's provably possible to do a UI redesign that adds features, functionality and usability without sinking half a career into it.

Second, if you have backed yourself into a development structure so obtuse and complex that it takes 15 man-years to redo it, then you have provably chosen the wrong development structure.

Obviously, you were practicing hyperbole to make a point, but it's a bad point. Basically, you are saying <whine>but it's too haaaaard!</whine>. Waaah!

The fact is that the overall look and feel of SageTV is not user friendly, it's not inviting, and it is structured so that you have to bounce all over the place to do the same thing - exactly how many entry points to you need to watch a video? Sage's default UI has what, 3? 4? I don't even know anymore, I use SageMC. And _it_ still has too many entry points. You know how many you need? 1.

Geeks bring Sage into the house, but the family decides if it stays. Without SageMC, you would be in FAR fewer households. The out-of-box experience for using Sage is VERY low, especially if you have used just about any other competing product. Tivo, ReplayTV, Windows MCE, BeyondTV, etc. all beat you _soundly_ on UI design.

The things that save you are your commitment to producing a technically sound product that works (can't fault that at all) and your user community. I've been using SageTV since version 3, and there have been no substantive improvements to the core UI since that time (ooooh! I can turn off the menu frames! Wow!). You are past due.

After, of course, fixing the music UI! I'll send you one of my old Audiotrons if you want to see how you can have a functional music interface with 2 lines of text, a scroll wheel and a couple of buttons. Also, exactly how hard is it to play a CD? Just wondering.

Having said all that, I still love using SageTV, and am a happy (overall) evangelist among my friends. I drank the kool-aid, but a little more sugar would be nice!

[tmiranda]

I started out using BeyondTV because it was:
1 - Recommended by one of the magazines.
2 - Easy to setup and use.
3 - Looked cool out of the box. (It even had sound effects )

After using BTV for a while I ran into several things I could not do so I started looking into Sage. At first I did not like Sage much at all. The UI was "vanilla" and it seemed "dorky". After learning more about Sage I would never go back to BTV. Of course, I am a certified geek who likes to tinker with computers.....

IMHO Sage needs a "catchy" interface in order to attract more first time, non-geek, users.

Like it or not, eye-candy works.

[xred]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I started out using BeyondTV because it was:
1 - Recommended by one of the magazines.
2 - Easy to setup and use.
3 - Looked cool out of the box. (It even had sound effects )

After using BTV for a while I ran into several things I could not do so I started looking into Sage. At first I did not like Sage much at all. The UI was "vanilla" and it seemed "dorky". After learning more about Sage I would never go back to BTV. Of course, I am a certified geek who likes to tinker with computers.....

IMHO Sage needs a "catchy" interface in order to attract more first time, non-geek, users.

Like it or not, eye-candy works.

/rant mode ON

The above post is pretty much bang on for the average user. Look around at ANY OTHER software package HTPC or not and you realize that looks and usability go hand in hand. Whats Vista's main selling point? MCE Vista vs MCE 2k5? Or OS X over system 9? You're kidding yourself if you think 50% of users upgrade for the "extra" functionality. They do it cause it looks new and nice.

The current Sage UI is daunting and just plain unsexy. No new user will want to explore the functionality of the app since its A) Not visually stimulating B) not very logically laid out.

My personal view is that any time debating whether or not a new UI is needed is time being wasted not working on the new UI. If you rate all the HTPC apps based on looks, I don't think there is anyone that would put SageTV in the top half of that list. Like it or not the MyTV / My Music / My Videos paradigm defines the HTPC / Media Center genre right now. If Sage can find a new and visually compelling way to deliver a visual experience that MCE users can easily migrate to from the limited functionality of MCE they would surely be seen as the leading HTPC app by the mainstream media as well.

Every Sage proponent on this board (myself included) already KNOWS its a great piece of software from a functionality perspective. The big problem is a lot of new users take Maximum PC and PC Magazine's reviews as gospel. If some of those users don't believe the hype and do try out Sage, they are rewarded with an awkward looking app that doesn't look nearly as cool as their friends MCE / XBOX 360 setup.

Anyone who has ever dated, bought a car or gone to a job interview knows that looks count =)

/rant mode OFF

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by sainswor99

Thanks (I think)

I'll try to respond in a brief fashion because I should really be working on something (instead of checking the forums incessantly). A couple of observations:

1. There seems to be a couple of very different definitions as to what constitutes UI: "eye candy", and navigational issues. Personally, I care less about eye candy, and care more about what I perceive to be issues with navigation, but I think the OP has indicated that he was really interested in changing eye candy. EDIT: Blast! Gkusnick caught my drift, and responded much too eloquently.

And while I see this brought up "a lot", nobody ever seems willing/able to quantify what's wrong with it. And if I were a Sage dev, that would make it nearly impossible to "fix" said issues. I know from my personal perspective, there are a couple things I'd like to change, but by and large (I've been using Sage since 1.3, you guys complaining about V6 should look at pre-V2 ) I don't know how to lay it out any better than the way it is.

The way it is makes sense to me, but I've used it for years. In order to fix the UI for new users, new users need to give specific examples of what's confusing, how they'd like it layed out, etc.

2. It seems impossible to have a discussion about SageTV without someone mentioning SageMC. I pose a hypothetical question: if SageTV were really as conducive to additional UI development as the SageMC enthusiasts describe, why is there only one viable alternative? I realize that there are several smaller plug-ins, and a few people have attempted to put together UI replacements (like SageMC), but SageMC seems to be the only one that has gained any ground.

Well we're blessed with an awesome user, mlbdude who layed the groundwork for SageMC. I'm not sure what his position was at the time (I think it was just beta tester) but without him there'd be no SageMC.

As for why there aren't more, well for one, there's Meekell, which is a totally different take from SageMC. But beyond that, it's definitely non-trivial to build an STV from the ground up. I've started to in the past, but I quickly became aware of just how big the issue is.

That said, it's impossible to make custom UIs for other PVR programs, MCE, BeyondTV can't be skinned at all AFAIK, maybe that's part of the price you pay for all the "flash" that you can't have that flash and easy skinability.

3. There is also some disagreement about the target audience of SageTV. I don't work for them, so I don't know who they are pitching it to, but my own experience with computers and technical support leads me to believe that it's targeted toward an experienced PC user, someone who understands that there's a trade-off between polish and extensibility.

I think PC PVRs in general are focused on the "experienced" PC user. Those with only a passing interest in PCs, are probably more apt to go the Tivo or DVR route.

I wish I could give specifics as to what aspects of the menu I think are out-of-place, but I'm not sitting in front of my Sage system right now. I'll try to post more later, but in general, I think the grouping of navigational levels are very strange. SageMC (dang, I said it) does a much better job of simplifying the navigational interface (in my opinion) than the stock UI.

I really do think that would be valuable, and I think a new thread would be the place for it (this thread is devolving into a "discussion" of if the Sage interface is good or not, basically the long-time users vs the newbies - not noobs )

Originally Posted by src666

I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this (the word I wanted to use is probably not polite enough for the forum).

First, SageMC didn't take 15 man-years to write, so it's provably possible to do a UI redesign that adds features, functionality and usability without sinking half a career into it.

First, let's all raise our hands, those of us who have delved into studio enough to understand what's involved in building a new STV, ground up.

An "overhaul" of the UI is definitely non-trivial. SageMC, or Meekell for example, probably share scarce little "code" with the stock STV.

Second, if you have backed yourself into a development structure so obtuse and complex that it takes 15 man-years to redo it, then you have provably chosen the wrong development structure.

The studio environment is both very nice, and limiting in other ways. But I'd sum it up like this. It may take 15 man-years to redo it. But if it were a "normal" plugin type architecture, it would take 30 man-years to redo it, and would be impossible for end users.

Obviously, you were practicing hyperbole to make a point, but it's a bad point. Basically, you are saying <whine>but it's too haaaaard!</whine>. Waaah!

Non-trivial is the point it was trying to make.

The fact is that the overall look and feel of SageTV is not user friendly, it's not inviting, and it is structured so that you have to bounce all over the place to do the same thing - exactly how many entry points to you need to watch a video?

How? What exactly should be moved? How should stuff be organized? I know I (and probably most long-term users) find the stock UI easy and logical. I assume it's the same for the devs. It requires the perspective of a new user to figure out what could be improved for new users.

The out-of-box experience for using Sage is VERY low, especially if you have used just about any other competing product.

Why? How? Examples?

Tivo, ReplayTV, Windows MCE, BeyondTV, etc. all beat you _soundly_ on UI design.

MCE is flashier, but I'm not sure I'd say it's layed out any better.