Skip to main content

Topic: I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style (Read 10502 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • xnor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #25
@q-stankovic: Not to the OP.

But I also prefer native (looking) apps and controls.
  • Last Edit: 25 September, 2011, 02:37:20 PM by xnor
"I hear it when I see it."

  • durch
  • [*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #26
I think most of the users won't complain if foobar2000, without sacrificing performance or functionality, came with an appealing visual design like Windows Media Player 12 - a pimped but still native look.

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #27
I think most of the users won't complain if the unpimped look remains.

(durch, in contrary to mm ugly skins wmp12 at least looks nice)
german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #28
Again, I'm not trolling. I am just having problems with Winamp gotten a little bloated over the years


...and now you want fb2k to go the same route ?

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #29
No problem, no hard feelings, everybody enjoy!

Thanks! Your point of view is now noted! Bye!
  • Last Edit: 25 September, 2011, 03:33:18 PM by q-stankovic
german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73

  • fusen
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #30
It amazes me how so many people are so vehemently against even tidying up the default look of the application. There has been a real sense in this thread that because Foobar is so feature rich that it somehow isn't allowed to also look pleasing to the eye. As if form and function can never be equal.

I'd hate to see what professional designers thought of Foobar.

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #31
I'd hate to see what professional designers thought of Foobar.
What makes you think there are no "professional designers" (whatever that means) in this crowd? I've studied user-interface, human-computer interaction, and many related fields extensively, and have made money with my expertise. foobar2000's user-interface dominates every other audio player I've tried in many, many different ways.
  • Last Edit: 27 September, 2011, 09:30:34 PM by Canar

  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #32
I think most of the users won't complain if foobar2000, without sacrificing performance or functionality, came with an appealing visual design like Windows Media Player 12 - a pimped but still native look.

While I doubt fb2k would ever look anything like WMP, one very real major hurdle with updating the interface is that XP doesn't have half the APIs Vista and later have.

So sure, if fb2k only ran on one platform like WMP12 maybe we could have some nicer things. One example I can think of is the Aero style tree controls that are used in the Preferences window since v1.0. Peter could update the Album List to use those same controls, but there would be so much platform specific code it's not worth the time.


As if form and function can never be equal.
As a superior example of this idea, I think Zao's waveform seekbar component is probably the most exemplary combination of form and function I've ever seen from any part of any media player interface. But I know, I know, this is the thread where we crap all over fb2k with a lot of bygone notions that existed before the interface overhaul in 0.9.5
  • Last Edit: 27 September, 2011, 10:36:44 PM by shakey_snake
elevatorladylevitateme

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #33
There has been a real sense in this thread that because Foobar is so feature rich that it somehow isn't allowed to also look pleasing to the eye. As if form and function can never be equal.

I'd hate to see what professional designers thought of Foobar.

It seems to me that foobar2000 is a case of form following function as far as possible, which is a large part of what makes it such a joy to use.

It's a bit like a well-crafted machine tool - you wouldn't decorate your Heckler & Koch G3 with a custom flourescent paint job, would you? Well, I wouldn't...

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #34
Sorry for interfering, but this discussion is a bit... ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, but why don't skinning f2k, if someone likes it? If it's a chooseable option, where is your problem? Well, I like the default UI and after some weeks of testing and replacing features and UI elements it looks quite nice in my eyes. So I won't need the skin option. But I think it's everybodies right to wish himself a media player, which is skinable and looking pleasing to his eyes. (Sorry for not gendering, I'm hating this...)



So, if he requests this feature, you all should let him do this. And let Peter and the developing team decide, if they want to integrate this feature. There's no need to be so harsh against the topic starter.
@ TS: As you've seen what you've unleashed with your post, choose in the future a writing style and a topic, which is a bit less offending.

  • dhromed
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #35
Don't get me wrong, but why don't skinning f2k, if someone likes it? If it's a chooseable option, where is your problem?


I think it's fine if a person wants a slick-looking player. I used to want that. In fact I still want it. But ultimately, foobar has won me over with superior functionality and I don't mourn the loss of skinnability.

Proper skinning requires that the underlying program has provisions for it, which takes time to implement and a lot of additional testing. If these aren't in place, then you can't support skinning, even if everyone, including the program author, is technically fine with the general idea of skinning. So it's a matter of, hey, too bad, but don't sweat it; there are more important things to think about.


  • tpijag
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #36
Re-read the first post. He did not request anything. He did not specifically state what is lacking.  He spent as little time and effort on the OP has he may of spent using Foobar2000. He 'gave it a shot'. It was not a constructive post. It was a general blanket criticism with no specifics offered and thus no specific way of receiving help. A trolling post as he later agreed. 

Where do you suggest the line be drawn regarding ease of skinning vs size of program vs speed of use? There are posts nearly everyday with examples here and at deviant art that foobar2000 can be skinned. Using both the default user interface and Columns user interface. Lots of people seem to be able to do it.
  • Last Edit: 28 September, 2011, 08:46:00 AM by tpijag

  • Rozzo
  • [*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #37
I don't understand this topic. Foobar2000, both with columns ui and default user interface, HAS in all of its versions the best looking interfaces or skins that you can find in any audioplayer. Search around and you will find real wonders of art and funcionality put together. Even if you don't like any of the hundreds of skins or interfaces, you only need to ask in the right place and you'll get exactly what you are looking for. So, what are you speaking of?

Ys
Rozzo


  • shakey_snake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #38
Sorry for interfering, but this discussion is a bit... ridiculous.


Re-read the first post. He did not request anything. He did not specifically state what is lacking.  He spent as little time and effort on the OP has he may of spent using foobar2000.


I don't understand this topic.



Echoing all these sentiments: great, so let's just let it die. This topic seems to be creating lots of hard feelings (be it blind fanboyism or blind skin love) but no one even knows (or can agree on) what is being discussed. Discussions of this type can be more constructive if they are focused.
elevatorladylevitateme

  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #39
I understand the topic starter perfectly. I don't believe any of you people defending foobar2000 use it with its out-of-the-box look. All he is suggesting is to make the default UI more appealing. He doesn't tell us how and some people are criticizing him for that. But if he did say something like "make it look like WMP or Winamp" he would be jumped at even more.

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #40
I understand the topic starter perfectly. I don't believe any of you people defending foobar2000 use it with its out-of-the-box look.
I add a couple more tabs to one of the default presets for certain third-party components. That's it.

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #41
case, for me it is visually more appealing to have an ui that matches exactly the os theme but i have no problem if someone likes more fancy skins. I must admit that i saw some really good skins in the terms of design and taste. The point is that the topic starter didn't ask for more visual pleasure but started trolling that foobar2000 looks like the 90's and such stuff. The most absurd part was his comment that he will stick with media monkey that in turn indeed looks like from last decade and is cumbersome and ugly. The latter is an objective rating i could give several reasons for.
german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73

  • mpuckett
  • [*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #42
And not to belabor the point about the functionality provided by fb2k but it should be pointed out that with the addition of the excellent UPnP component you can indeed use any UPnP controller as your player UI, including WMP12 if you so desire. As for myself, I frequently use a UPnP controller app on my android phone to control various players around my house streaming from my fb2k server.

There are many UI choices for fb2k once you take the time to understand what it is capable of providing.

  • xordae
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #43
"What people expect.. software to look like.. in 2011"

Really, do they? Have you asked many?

Making a point is fine, but please don't make it with infuriating BS arguments. I'm not even gonna get into the backwardsness of a graphically supercharged interface for something that plays audio only. Because, by the argument I quoted up there, that would make people pretty dumb. And they aren't.

As already mentioned by others, if you want fancy, there's always Columns UI and Deviantart for inspiration. But the vanilla look does not need spicing up. People who get foobar2000 get it to suit their needs exactly. That means the default look will almost always be modified.

  • Beavis04
  • [*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #44
The UI could be a little more slick, in terms of preferences UI and some of the menu UIs but as far as the player goes itself, it is unbeatable.

  • jistme
  • [*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #45
Hithere,

Today I gave Foobar a shot, intending to divorce from Winamp after a very long and happy marriage.
After hearing some positive feedback about Foobar I gave it a try, but to be honest, I am quiet astounded to see that Foobar is graphically still in the 90's, and so is the way to get usable skins (to make the experience a little more apealing and usable) to work.

O.k. flame me to hell with probably a lot of valid arguments and opinions, but I can't imagine I am the only one looking for a Winamp of the 21st century, and will for these reasons not choose Foobar as a successor.


Time for a small genuflection from my side.

Having some spare time lately, and besides the bashing reading also some good arguments in this thread I spend some time and effort experimenting with FooBar and all kinds of plug-ins. (a lot of time, effort and some cursing to be honest)
It's now clear to me that if you have the time and persistence, you can make FooBar into your personal almost perfect audio player. Options like splitters, tabs and presets are really great once you get the hang of it.
I developped a lot of apreciation for the inventor and all contributors, and now see it as a twisted kind of fun project.

Still I would be very hesitant to advise FooBar to most of my friends, since I am afraid I would have to spend lots of time helping them adjusting everything to everybody's wishes.

I understand that the original programmer is very protective about his code and alternative installers, and of course this is praiseworthy.
Still I am convinced FooBar could be a lot more popular and easy to use if there was at least a small choice of installers with plug-ins and themes included, targeted to some different kind of users.

It would also help if there was a solid and easy option to make a backup of all personalisations, plug-ins and tweaks.
It is (at least for me) quite a struggle to figure out which files and folders to back-up, and later on paste or replace.


Jistme.

  • dhromed
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #46
Quote
genuflection


You mean reflection or introspection?

Quote
Still I would be very hesitant to advise FooBar to most of my friends, since I am afraid I would have to spend lots of time helping them adjusting everything to everybody's wishes.


No interface system with that allows users to have complete layout control can be without community support. The reason you would be helping them is because it's possible at all with Foobar, not because it's done poorly in Foobar.

Note: Foobar already contains a set of preset layouts.

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #47
What are FooBar and Foobar? :s

I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #48
I like the way Foobar2000 looks.  I customized mine extensively, and it wasn't difficult.  I HATE the way Windows Media Player looks.  It's like some kind of fisher price crap.  Foobar2000 looks very professional and about business.  And since you can customize the layout and fonts and colors there's really no reason to complain.
opinion is not fact

  • wojtek
  • [*][*][*][*]
I think fb2k looks too basic by default and is hard to skin/style
Reply #49
case, for me it is visually more appealing to have an ui that matches exactly the os theme[...]


This. I'm aware that it's matter of personal preferences, but my inner OCD forces me to use apps that inherits OS theme and does not stand out and this is one of the biggest assets of the foobar2000 for me (am I the only one that doesn't like rummaging for hundreds of skins just to find one that at least barely matches the rest of the applications?)
http://foobar2000.pl/ :: unofficial polish forum