Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Customization, fancy visuals, etc. (Read 27174 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

foobar2000 is not about customizability.

I chose foobar2000 for it's customizability (not panelsui, but columnsui!). From my point of view, this is where foobar2000 differs from other more popular players, and taking a look at the "Appearance" thread, you can't deny that customization is a greatly requested feature.

Indeed I like the way that foobar2000 shows it's simplicity, and also the requirements from authors on how components should look and feel, but I think most of the criticism were not very constructive and show too much ignorance. I fear that developers would pull back development of new components due to such unwritten rules.

To sum it up, I wished that foobar2000 authors would accept the fact that many users think that foobar2000 is the best feature packed player with ability for custom enhancements in the user interface.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #1

foobar2000 is not about customizability.

I chose foobar2000 for it's customizability (not panelsui, but columnsui!). From my point of view, this is where foobar2000 differs from other more popular players, and taking a look at the "Appearance" thread, you can't deny that customization is a greatly requested feature.

Indeed I like the way that foobar2000 shows it's simplicity, and also the requirements from authors on how components should look and feel, but I think most of the criticism were not very constructive and show too much ignorance. I fear that developers would pull back development of new components due to such unwritten rules.

To sum it up, I wished that foobar2000 authors would accept the fact that many users think that foobar2000 is the best feature packed player with ability for custom enhancements in the user interface.


100% agree with your point of view odyssey.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #2
I chose foobar2000 for it's customizability (not panelsui, but columnsui!). From my point of view, this is where foobar2000 differs from other more popular players, and taking a look at the "Appearance" thread, you can't deny that customization is a greatly requested feature.


What do you really mean with customization? Looking into the preferences of other players i see much more options - the jump to file plugin in winamp (similar to foobars "add to playbackqueue" command) alone contains 5 or 6 pages (!) in the preferences. What will change for you as a ColumnsUi user if you don't use exactly that components that are the reason for the decision. I heard so often: "foobar is about customizing everything" and i also heard so often: "foobar is very hard to customize". That is meant with reputation: it could frighten user wich would need foobars core features and attracts others who are not really interested in them.

Indeed I like the way that foobar2000 shows it's simplicity, and also the requirements from authors on how components should look and feel, but I think most of the criticism were not very constructive and show too much ignorance.


Please explicate that!


I fear that developers would pull back development of new components due to such unwritten rules.


They will stop writing certain types of components - sure, what else? That is intended! Your fear is other peoples hope and i hope that somedays the threads here in the forum will be about features and functions. And i hope that developers will take look in other existing programs to be inspired by them: for example the "artist/group relations" feature in Helium Music Manager or how easy the sorting of artists names can be determined without writing complex titleformatting just for removing "The" or other articles from beginning of the name.


To sum it up: there are three different groups of users

1. People who are using foobar as player, tagger, converter, library manager, playlist creator and so on.

2. People who like to see their album art dancing to the rythm

3. People who like to do the same like group 1

If saying "good bye" to group 2 means an invitation for group 3 - hey, that is really ok!

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #3
To sum it up: there are three different groups of users

1. People who are using foobar as player, tagger, converter, library manager, playlist creator and so on.

2. People who like to see their album art dancing to the rythm

3. People who like to do the same like group 1

If saying "good bye" to group 2 means an invitation for group 3 - hey, that is really ok!


Well that's a little myopic...
So to you there are basically only two groups?  What of the people who like to "see their album art dancing to the rythm" (oh ****ing please...) and like to use it as a tagger, converter, library manager, playlist creator etc?  Stop treating people who like some degree of aesthetics as superficial and vain.  Not everyone appreciates your bleak utilitarian aesthetic preference.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #4
I chose foobar2000 for it's customizability (not panelsui, but columnsui!). From my point of view, this is where foobar2000 differs from other more popular players, and taking a look at the "Appearance" thread, you can't deny that customization is a greatly requested feature.

Sorry, but this is simply untrue and uses logically false reasoning.

1. Foobar2000 itself is the core plus official plugins. As has already mentioned elsewhere, both do not mainly promote "customizability". Customizability in its current strengtht is almost exclusively a 3rd party phenomenon. So, the app itself does not have this feature - rather, its extensibility made it possible, that the community could add this "feature".

2. Popularity does not automatically imply meaningfulness. ("Eat shit - billions of flies cannot be wrong").

3. Popularity inside a single selective sample, is not even representative of overall popularity. Certain trends and weaknesses resultat in 3rd party development focussing on customizability. People who made use of strong customaziability, then PROMOTED this mentality, by showing off their results - which in turn made newcomers asume, that "the foobar2000-community spirit" is about creating what these people were promoting and showing. At this point, the entire fb2k complex (app + community) got a "public image" which SELECTIVELY attracted a specific type of audience. Thus, the current popularity of customizability is no indication that people who may like foobar are also interested in customizability. The community and 3rd party development could have taken a different route, and then today you would see a completely different "public image" - without the main app itself changing in any way!

4. What makes you asume, that the people behind the main app are interested in "getting as many users as possible" (popularity)?

What can be said, is that certain developments in the community resulted in a positive-feedbackloop which attracted certain people, and pissed off others - for reasons, which are totally unrelated to the main app itself (its entirely a community thing). Apparently, the direction which this "vocal part of the community" took, are in conflict with other parts of the community and a few people who are in strong contact with the development of the main app.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #5
There seems to be a certain misconception that the metadb_display_hook API is going to be abandoned to "kill" Panels UI because it is extremely customizable and provides fancy visuals and that we don't like "customizable" and "fancy visuals". That is not true.

While most in the foobar2000 team personally do not care much for fancy visuals, we really don't mind if other people do.

What disturbs us is the abuse and overuse of the title formatting facilities. There are better ways than title formatting scripts to define the look and feel of a user interface, you just need to look at foo_popupplus and foo_prettypop to see that (to name just two). foo_ui_gfx was an attempt to create a full UI module - not just a popup window for playback information - using Lua scripting; unfortunately it never progressed as far as I had hoped, and one day its author completely vanished. I'm not going to give a full list of the drawbacks and limitations of the title formatting engine and syntax here, I'll save that for a tutorial for plugin developers on this topic.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #6
Interesting discussion.

I'm probably relatively new to foobar (i.e. started with 9.4.3), following a brief go with foobar a number of years prior. The thing that has impressed me (that I didn't comprehend first time round) is that everything I've wanted a player to be able to do, I've found (either via these forums or the wiki and elsewhere) that foobar could somehow achieve it (not talking about looks, in the main, either). There isn't any other player that gets close in this regard.

I did a search on the metadb_display_hook API and found only these recent posts - so please forgive my ignorance - I would appreciate it if someone could point to some info on the metadb_display_hook API so I can educate myself -- in the meantime, I'll go out on a limb at the risk of completely missing the point.

I agree, I think, with odyssey's initial sentiment. And strongly disagree with q-stankovic's strange categorisations and generalisations. I have two versions of foobar 9.4.3 one for working on music and one for enjoying other people's music (music library version).

The latter version uses the following components, and I was wondering which of these would be affected?

foo_autoplaylist.dll
foo_custominfo.dll
foo_cwb_hooks.dll  ----  [YES by the sounds of it]
foo_dbsearch_api_demo.dll
foo_navigator.dll
foo_playback_custom.dll
foo_playlist_manager.dll
foo_uie_albumart.dll
foo_uie_trackinfo.dll
foo_utils.dll

A number of the above are used to perform a ratings algorithm (in testing phase). I'd be very disappointed if that classed as "title-formatting abuse". Or really if minor superficial niceties such as "foo_uie_albumart" were either. I've used a number of 3rd party components to get foobar2000 to do what I want it to do, not to get it to look like I want it to look. If foo_cwb_hooks.dll is negatively affected (for example) then for me foobar2000 loses essential functionality.

If I'm way off here please let me know what this decision by the devs will mean for users like me, who are probably somewhere between Panels UI complete customization types and users who are more than happy with 9.5's default UI.

Thanks
C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #7
There seems to be a certain misconception that the metadb_display_hook API is going to be abandoned to "kill" Panels UI because it is extremely customizable and provides fancy visuals and that we don't like "customizable" and "fancy visuals". That is not true.

While most in the foobar2000 team personally do not care much for fancy visuals, we really don't mind if other people do.

What disturbs us is the abuse and overuse of the title formatting facilities. There are better ways than title formatting scripts to define the look and feel of a user interface, you just need to look at foo_popupplus and foo_prettypop to see that (to name just two). foo_ui_gfx was an attempt to create a full UI module - not just a popup window for playback information - using Lua scripting; unfortunately it never progressed as far as I had hoped, and one day its author completely vanished. I'm not going to give a full list of the drawbacks and limitations of the title formatting engine and syntax here, I'll save that for a tutorial for plugin developers on this topic.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that subject.
I would also like to know what is happening with the Default UI SDK. There are some very good components that I would love to use in Default UI, but the developer isn't able to do so. I don't know all the inner-workings of Foobar2000's devlopment, so I don't know why there seems to be only a few third party components developed for Default UI. How did the developers get access to what ever it is they used to make a Default UI component? EDIT: just found this.
Also, where would someone make a suggestion for the foobar core plugins? I have been thinking about the context menu lately. Is it possible to edit what menu items show up under what context? Say, for example you've selected a group of songs through the grouping feature in a playlist. Could you make context specific items show up? Like if you selected an album, then under replaygain, it would have "scan as album" first, or only.  I am not sure if it's possible to implement in a simple, intuitive fashion, but sometimes you have to have a learning curve in order to ensure the user knows what they are doing to do what they want to.
I really want to be able to sort things one way and display them another, but I have hit brick walls all over the place.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #8
discussions about guesstimated user groups is ultimately as pointless as it is fruitless, since for better or worse, user's "wants" typically aren't considered.

Unfortunately I agree with you : this is the way foobar works. It's certainly not the way I'd like it to work but that's a fact. fb2k users are only expected to get what they've given without complaining since it's free. They're not really expected to give new ideas (maybe they're not even expected to be able to have good ideas actually  ). They're only expected to help debug the own fb2k developers' ideas. For better or worse like you said. 

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #9

foobar2000 is not about customizability.

I chose foobar2000 for it's customizability (not panelsui, but columnsui!). From my point of view, this is where foobar2000 differs from other more popular players, and taking a look at the "Appearance" thread, you can't deny that customization is a greatly requested feature.

Indeed I like the way that foobar2000 shows it's simplicity, and also the requirements from authors on how components should look and feel, but I think most of the criticism were not very constructive and show too much ignorance. I fear that developers would pull back development of new components due to such unwritten rules.

To sum it up, I wished that foobar2000 authors would accept the fact that many users think that foobar2000 is the best feature packed player with ability for custom enhancements in the user interface.

I too agree with odyssey.

I'm quite amused actually to see the current trend towards simplicity. Why ? Because I strongly believe foobar2000 will NEVER really be a real "easy-to-use player", despite its authors' efforts. They can try for all it's worth, and they will probably succeed in making it a simpler player (cool ! but what for ?)... but the fact is they'll never succeed in making it a real "easy-to-use player".

foobar2000 needs the understanding of a certain number of concepts (e.g. titleformatting, prefs, 3rd-party plugins), not necessarily complicated, but far beyond the scope of what we would call the average "simple player user".

Not to mention Facets (a great plugin ! so often used by DUI users that it should be considered as a part of foobar's core). Facets might seem easy to use at first sight because it's trivial to make it show some results, but if you want to do some real in-depth use of it, then its power can only be matched by its complexity, which is far beyond what the average "simple player user" wants. I can illustrate this with some examples if you wish.

I don't see why foobar developers have chosen a path towards simplicity within a player that will NEVER be a real "easy-to-use player". In fact I could see a good reason (simplicity is a good thing actually)... if simplicity wasn't to be at the expense of customizability. Because I believe that's the reason why most foobar users here have chosen it : customizability, NOT simplicity.

If you want a real "easy-to-use player", it already exists and a lot of people are already using it : iTunes. Is that really the way to go here ? The example to follow for all of us ? I don't think so.  But as a mere foobar user, I'm pretty sure my opinion (our opinion) will not be taken into consideration by foobar developers. So this discussion is unfortunately pointless until they end changing their mind... eventually.

When I joined the foobar users base, I thought the foobar project was some kind of wonderful "open project", where every user was invited to give his own opinion to help improve the software, and where everyone was happy with the result (the iTunes opposite !). I guess I couldn't have been more wrong about it.

I also thought the foobar project was a "collective effort" to achieve the "ultimate player", the player that could be used for almost all purposes (flexibility, customizability, you name it). Here too I was wrong :
- foobar2000 is a collective effort... but the "collective" part is mainly limited to the developers team. They decide of everything that's important, even if most users don't think the same. Users are only expected to help about small things (when they're expected to help of course).
- foobar2000 could really be the "ultimate player"... but I don't think the current thread towards simplicity will help in that matter. In fact I'm pretty sure of the opposite.


So I guess one day we'll simply say that foobar2000 COULD HAVE BEEN the ultimate player. And maybe that day all of us will be playing with another player that will have become the "real ultimate player". Yes, that's a sad story, really. Sorry for that, but like you all I'm not the one that's writing it. 

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #10
Quote from: carpman link=msg=0 date=
I agree, I think, with odyssey's initial sentiment. And strongly disagree with q-stankovic's strange categorisations and generalisations.


It is my fault if my statement about the groups was misunderstood as "strange categorisation": i tried to be ironical and polemic but i should better stop doing that in a language i can't write well. To come to the serious point of the statement: it was an reaction to the argument that foobar will loose users and developer will stop writing some components. That is true as long as the abilty to customize foobar in a visual fancy way is the main reason to use foobar- these group indeed exists! If you belong to that type of users that are using the whole capatibilty of the player and also like some eye-candy you won't looking for other programs and will try the best with existing means until some UI appears that will give you pleasure for your eyes. Please don't misunderstand me: i started with ColumnsUi, i liked playing around with trackinfo panel, i had sympathy for terretrials first plugins but i also disliked the way how terrestrial continued his plugins. Mainly i dislike the way how some panels ui user appeared here on the forum: gready. Maybe that greadiness avoided a senseful development of SCP and Trackinfo Mod. Maybe not: i started to loose interest and didn't follow anymore the development.

Edit:
@Jose Hidalgo

I think you are mixing sveral points to one:

1. Options for components (available in preferences): f.e. to determine when play counter should increase (after 60% of the tracklength) or to define album art folder and so on

2. eye candy stuff

3. abuse of title formatting language.

Yes, if you mean point 1 i agree with you in some points (although you are unfair against the developers) but also would like to underline that i consider title formatting as bad mean: i like good old check boxes, drop down menus, fields and so on.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #11
i agree with you in some points (although you are unfair against the developers)

I'd simply like to emphasize the fact that I totally respect the work of fb2k's developers : they certainly have done a great amount of work since the beginning, given what fb2k has become today, and everyone of us should be thankful for that. I am for sure. But this only proves that fb2k's developers are great developers from a technical point of view.

What I strongly dislike about them is, like snakey snake said, the fact that "for better or worse, user's "wants" typically aren't considered". This, unfortunately, proves that fb2k's developers (may it be all of them or a part of them, nevermind), despite being such great developers, are obviously too much self-centered and prefer to think that their own personal opinion is worth more than a thousand people's opinion. Or even worse, to think that their own personal opinion may not be as goot as a thousand people's opinion... but since it's their own personal opinion it's the only one that matters. 

Of course it's their right to do so... but it certainly isn't the right way to do it IMHO. It's not because you are entitled to do something that you are necessarily doing the right thing.

And it gets worse when SOME devs not only refuse to take user's "wants" into consideration, but moreover they sort of "like" to reply to users in a really cold, scorning, unrespectful way (this has been becoming quite common, even in HA Forums - just look around). Just to make it clear that "They are the Devs, They Decide, They are in Command, and you are just a damn useless user, who doesn't know anything about anything, and who should keep his mouth shut except for saying 'thank you'"(*). I certainly am not such kind of sheep ! Are you people ?...

Fortunately all developers aren't like that. There are some great developers out there that yet really care about user's "wants" (I know at least one, he might even be reading this topic  ). Users help them debug their software, and they please users by implementing their "wants", even when their opinion is slightly different.

That's the way everything should work, including fb2k. Users help devs, devs really listen to users in a democratic way (even by implementing official opinion polls whenever needed), and everyone is happy, period. Until fb2k devs accept to understand this very simple statement, we will keep having trouble. And who knows, even fb2k's future might be compromised in the end because of that. What a mess for a player that could still become the "ultimate player" if its devs cared a bit more about the user base...


(*) this sentence is from me of course, not from a dev. It's the idea it carries that's important.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #12
Of course it's their right to do so... but it certainly isn't the right way to do it IMHO.

According to which criteria - morals? Ideology? Logic?
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #13
Hi Lyx,

Probably the three :
- Morals ,because the current devs attitude doesn' look very moral to me (it's my opinion after all),
- Ideology, because in a society where democracy rules, such an oligarchic behaviour really looks out of place and time,
- Logic, because in our society it would seem logical to follow the rules that exist almost everywhere, and because I think that I have proved that following logic would put us all in a "win-win" situation (instead of a "win-and-I-don't-care-about-the-others" situation).

But do yourself a favor : please consider my post as a whole instead of focusing on the only real sentence where I have expressed a strong personal opinion (thus the IMHO). Thank you.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #14
When 0.9 was released many things was removed - but also the biggest part you can find in advanced preferences. That is what i meant with unfair

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #15
All right. So, to make it even clearer : I don't really care how foobar evolves, as long as it remains FULLY CUSTOMIZABLE. Be it in prefs, advanced prefs, 3rd party plugins, whatever. I don't care, but I want full customizability to remain an essential part of foobar's future. I don't want any features to be lost along the way.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #16
All right. So, to make it even clearer : I don't really care how foobar evolves, as long as it remains FULLY CUSTOMIZABLE. Be it in prefs, advanced prefs, 3rd party plugins, whatever. I don't care, but I want full customizability to remain an essential part of foobar's future. I don't want any features to be lost along the way. :)

Thats called "greedy customization" - a desire not for a certain degree of customization, but a desire without limits and reason. "X for the sake of X". You're not really improving the meaningfulness of your point here.

Quote
- Logic, because in our society it would seem logical to follow the rules that exist almost everywhere

Translation: "It is popular so it is true and meaningful."
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #17
What does FULLY CUSTOMIZABLE mean? It is an abstract term that doesn't tell what should be customized and for what purpose. If you use it in such a way fully customizability means the freedom to do senseless and absurd things.

Jose Hidalgo, why don't you list the concrete details you would like to have as feature?

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #18
I'm quite amused actually to see the current trend towards simplicity. Why ? Because I strongly believe foobar2000 will NEVER really be a real "easy-to-use player", despite its authors' efforts. They can try for all it's worth, and they will probably succeed in making it a simpler player (cool ! but what for ?)... but the fact is they'll never succeed in making it a real "easy-to-use player".

Excuse me? I've been using foobar2000 since the 0.4 days and I've always found it very easy to use. I have installed it, fed it my audio, hit play, minimized and enjoyed the music. If that isn't easy then I have no idea what is.

foobar2000 needs the understanding of a certain number of concepts (e.g. titleformatting, prefs, 3rd-party plugins), not necessarily complicated, but far beyond the scope of what we would call the average "simple player user".

Needs the understanding according to who? Those people who like to customize it hell and back with titleformatting syntax? Although I am quite tech savvy person, I've installed foobar2000 to many computer illiterate friends and none of them have had any problems with foobar2000. And if they wanted a bit different playlist view, I told them how to do it, and after 0.9.5 I didn't even have to tell them anything anymore, since it's very easy to set up.

Not to mention Facets (a great plugin ! so often used by DUI users that it should be considered as a part of foobar's core). Facets might seem easy to use at first sight because it's trivial to make it show some results, but if you want to do some real in-depth use of it, then its power can only be matched by its complexity, which is far beyond what the average "simple player user" wants. I can illustrate this with some examples if you wish.

And now you're completely contradicting yourself. Facets is a 3rd party plugin (although the dev is close to the core development) and is not part of fb2k core. BUT, facets is easy to use for simple things (which I and my friends have been happy to use it for), and thus is very much a good component for beginners. But Facets also possesses great power, IF you have a need for such things (and I wouldn't imagine even myself needing those).

I don't see why foobar developers have chosen a path towards simplicity within a player that will NEVER be a real "easy-to-use player". In fact I could see a good reason (simplicity is a good thing actually)... if simplicity wasn't to be at the expense of customizability. Because I believe that's the reason why most foobar users here have chosen it : customizability, NOT simplicity.

The chosen path is not really towards simplicity with the price of customization. The path is to get away from overly comlicated way of customization, which in honesty, benefits no one. The amount of requests we get on the fb2k irc channel about PUI is overwhelming and the stories we hear are somethign out of this world (I mean, the usage of the titleformatting is overly abused). The means of this action is to provoke the developers of 3rd party plugins to program their components so they are more easily customizable. As in, drop down boxes, radio buttons and such, not thousands of lines of titleformatting script to slow down the player and make everything so hard for newbies to understand.


If you want a real "easy-to-use player", it already exists and a lot of people are already using it : iTunes. Is that really the way to go here ? The example to follow for all of us ? I don't think so.  But as a mere foobar user, I'm pretty sure my opinion (our opinion) will not be taken into consideration by foobar developers. So this discussion is unfortunately pointless until they end changing their mind... eventually.

For being a long time user I find this very funny. Constructive criticism and well justified feature requests have always been taken into consideration. Trolling about some features is not justified nor constructive. The more you troll about something the less the developers usually take into consideration, so I'd suggest that you take a moderate approach to feature suggestions and also listen to the developers justification as of why it will/is not (be) implemented.

When I joined the foobar users base, I thought the foobar project was some kind of wonderful "open project", where every user was invited to give his own opinion to help improve the software, and where everyone was happy with the result (the iTunes opposite !). I guess I couldn't have been more wrong about it.

Well, you thought wrong. Foobar2000 has never been an open project, nor have I ever even thought so. I have been happy about every new version and the features I've been given, sometimes making a feature request and a bug report which have always been taken seriously, since I have have good grounds to my suggestions.

I also thought the foobar project was a "collective effort" to achieve the "ultimate player", the player that could be used for almost all purposes (flexibility, customizability, you name it). Here too I was wrong :
- foobar2000 is a collective effort... but the "collective" part is mainly limited to the developers team. They decide of everything that's important, even if most users don't think the same. Users are only expected to help about small things (when they're expected to help of course).
- foobar2000 could really be the "ultimate player"... but I don't think the current thread towards simplicity will help in that matter. In fact I'm pretty sure of the opposite.[/color]

I really don't understand where you have gotten these ideas. There have never been any official statement from the fb2k development team, that they are building some kind of a ultimate player. The ultimate player is a delusion of some of fb2ks user base and unfortunately I have to say, the part which happens to be quite loud.

So I guess one day we'll simply say that foobar2000 COULD HAVE BEEN the ultimate player. And maybe that day all of us will be playing with another player that will have become the "real ultimate player". Yes, that's a sad story, really. Sorry for that, but like you all I'm not the one that's writing it. 

Foobar2000 for me has been the "ultimate player" (as in the one and only I've been using for the last 5 years) from the beginning. Fortunately you are not the one who's writing it, I really like how Peter develops the player.

Over and out.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #19
i like good old check boxes, drop down menus, fields and so on.

Me too. It is all about the difference between:

Code: [Select]
(draft)

Select tracks      during the last       sorted by

(_) added          (_) 24 hours          (*) latest first
(_) modified       (_) three days        (_) earliest first
(*) played         (_) week              (_) most played first
                   (*) two weeks         (_) top rated first
                   (_) month
                   (_) three months
                   (_) six months
                   (_) year
                   (_) anytime

and:

Code: [Select]
(untested)

Query: $div($cwb_datediff(%cwb_systemdatetime%,%last_played%),7) LESS 3
Sort: $sub(99999999999999,$replace(%last_played%,-,,:,, ,))

No problem with customizability. Just with how it is realized.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #20
Or to give an example for higher level of customizibality with usage of dropdown boxes:

Select [dropdown: added/last played/modified] [dropdown: during the last/before/...] [textfield for number: ]
[dropdown: minutes/hours/days/weeks/months/years]

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #21
If you want a real "easy-to-use player", it already exists and a lot of people are already using it : iTunes.
I promise you, nothing about iTunes is actually easy to use.

What I strongly dislike about them is, like snakey snake said, the fact that "for better or worse, user's "wants" typically aren't considered".

Funny, it's one of the thing I like most about the project.

More explicitly, I think it's one of the major factors that has created the project's uncompromised excellence, and it's that excellence which I like, and I think all Foobar2000 users enjoy, even if they (like yourself Jose) can't quite understand or explain it.

I mean Panels UI never happens unless Peter writes a program with a completely modular UI, right?
elevatorladylevitateme

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #22

What I strongly dislike about them is, like snakey snake said, the fact that "for better or worse, user's "wants" typically aren't considered".

Funny, it's one of the thing I like most about the project.

More explicitly, I think it's one of the major factors that has created the project's uncompromised excellence, and it's that excellence which I like, and I think all Foobar2000 users enjoy, even if they (like yourself Jose) can't quite understand or explain it.

While when reading this exactly as it is written may be right, there is a high potential for misunderstandings in this: It can easily be understood as "the main devs do not care about the users". This from my experience is NOT the case.

From my experience, the main devs do care about the "Problems" which people have, but do not care much about the "proposed means how to solve the problem". This is because, sadly, users typically lack experience and understanding about creating solutions to problems - thats typically what devs do. Users are quite good at "testing" things - if they were also capable of properly describing the problems which they find, and the goals which they want to reach (NOT the means), then that would make users be able to play a quite important role in development. Unfortunatelly however, users typically are -neither- willing nor capable of describing their problems - which makes them quite inefficient participants in the development process.

Devs tend to be interested in problems and purposes of users - not in proposed solutions and means. If you understand why, then you will have a much better chance of being taken into account during development - not just in the case of foobar, but software apps in general.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #23
@ my friend Frank  :
No problem with customizability. Just with how it is realized.

I totally agree with this. What I really wouldn't like is this...

Code: [Select]
(draft)

Select tracks      during the last       sorted by

(_) added          (_) 24 hours          (*) latest first
(_) modified       (_) three days        (_) earliest first
(*) played         (_) week              (_) most played first
                   (*) two weeks         (_) top rated first
                   (_) month
                   (_) three months
                   (_) six months
                   (_) year
                   (_) anytime


to become this :

Code: [Select]
(draft)

Select tracks      during the last       sorted by

(_) added          (_) 24 hours          (*) latest first
(_) modified       (_) week              (_) earliest first
                   (_) month
                   (_) year
                   (_) anytime

It's not about simplifying things : that is obviously always good. It's about losing customizability in the process. And I'm afraid it will be the case.


@shakey snake :
I swear to you, I have been a iTunes user for many years since its very first version before switching to foobar. And believe me, from the "basic user" point of view (which is obviously not your case  ), iTunes is easier to use than foobar will EVER be. Unfortunately its enormous lack of features makes it no match for alternative players like foobar. But it remains the ideal player for the "basic user".


@DotNoir :
Excuse me? I've been using foobar2000 since the 0.4 days and I've always found it very easy to use. I have installed it, fed it my audio, hit play, minimized and enjoyed the music. If that isn't easy then I have no idea what is.

If that is what you do with foobar, then you're not really "using" foobar. Every single player out there can do what you say : install, fed, play, minimize, enjoy. This topic is not about such basic things.

Needs the understanding according to who? Those people who like to customize it hell and back with titleformatting syntax?

I'd say at least 80% of foobar users deal with titleformating & other stuff. Probably more in fact. Maybe even you, but I promise I won't tell anybody. 

And now you're completely contradicting yourself. Facets is a 3rd party plugin (although the dev is close to the core development) and is not part of fb2k core. BUT, facets is easy to use for simple things (which I and my friends have been happy to use it for), and thus is very much a good component for beginners. But Facets also possesses great power, IF you have a need for such things (and I wouldn't imagine even myself needing those).

YES. And where on earth have you read something different from me ? Please read me again before losing time on re-writing exactly what I have written.

The chosen path is not really towards simplicity with the price of customization.

I would be happy if that was true. Unfortunately it is not. Look at DUI for instance. It is a great interface, and I really enjoy using it (no, I'm not a columns/panel user). But it lacks customization abilities. For example the awful seekbar and volume control can't be customized. The $rgb function in Playlist View doesn't work anymore. The SDK is still not available (why ?) so a lot of 3rd-party components still can't be ported to DUI. The Album Art Viewer is totally unappropriate for a lot of users who don't want to have folders full of "folder.jpg" images (try having your artwork in a single folder, or in a separate folder hierarchy, e.g. Music\Music folders for the music, and Artwork\Artwork folders for the artwork. The Album Art Viewer simply can't handle this very simple functionality. Why ? I could go on and on... these are only some of the features that were lost on the transition to 0.9.5. And now the devs are telling us that it's going to get even worse ?

The path is to get away from overly comlicated way of customization, which in honesty, benefits no one.

Again, I agree with the idea, but I'd really like if it was followed by the facts.

As in, drop down boxes, radio buttons and such, not thousands of lines of titleformatting script to slow down the player and make everything so hard for newbies to understand.

And why not let people decide for themselves ? Some will prefer radio buttons, some other will prefer titleformatting scripts. It's all about different tastes. Some users like Windows, some other like OS X, some even like Linux in command-line mode (which could be compared to titleformatting here). Now you're telling us that a "OS X-like" interface is going to make things easier. Great !... provided advanced users can keep having full access to titleformatting. After all, even OS X has a Terminal app for full access to advanced Unix features. 

For being a long time user I find this very funny. Constructive criticism and well justified feature requests have always been taken into consideration.

Can you tell me how many of the above-requested features have really been taken into consideration since they've been asked for ?

Foobar2000 has never been an open project, nor have I ever even thought so.

Yes, and maybe that's the real problem. Sometimes I dream about foobar being "open source". Now THAT would be good ! Tell me, who can really benefit of foobar being a closed project ? Not the users, for sure.

The ultimate player is a delusion of some of fb2ks user base and unfortunately I have to say, the part which happens to be quite loud.

Not trying to build the ultimate player when you've got such strong foundations is really a shame and a lack of ambition. So what is foobar, really ? Just a player like all the others ? That's all ? Well...


@Lyx :
( Lyx wrote : "This is because, sadly, users typically lack experience and understanding about creating solutions to problems" )
This could be considered as insulting for a good part of the users.  My understanding is that there are good and bad users, just like there are good and bad developers. Believe me, a part of the users have all the required experience and understanding. And being a dev is not mandatory to learn about creating solutions to problems.

But what is true is that a part of the devs really don't know how to listen. They are self-centered, not because of the users, but because of themselves. And this is wrong.

So come on, let's stop putting the devs in a beautiful pedestral, like if they were "superior" to users. This is an endless discussion. Devs are NOT "superior" to anybody, and it's plain stupidity to even think they could be. They are simply people with programming skills in a given language (just like there are people who speak japanese, other "speak" C++ or Java), and of course a certain sense of logic which is required for programming. But that's all.

Customization, fancy visuals, etc.

Reply #24
It's not about simplifying things : that is obviously always good. It's about losing customizability in the process. And I'm afraid it will be the case.

The causes for your flawed fears:

- The asumption that (mental) resources are infinite
- The asumption that something can exist, without using up any resources (including mental)
- The asumption that something is meaningful merely because it exists, which automatically leads to: Complexity is good. The cause for those motivations of you, is "means for the sake of means". Example: "The means 'customizability' is good for the purpose of 'customizability'. Therefore, any additional option is good, because it adds more options. The more options, the better.' <--- any sense of "quality" and "meaning" is lost! Quantity for the sake of quantity.

In case you now still ignorantly will defend your position with "oh, but if you dont like it, just ignore it - you dont have to use it', i present you with the following scenario: *gives Jose an app with 4000 options* "Here, now configure it however you like and ignore the stuff which you dont need. I made sure to include EVERY option which any user on the planet may wish for. You will probably just need to set about 30 options and can just ignore the rest, so i expect you to be finished configuring in 30mins. Dont be late."

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021