Pete and others in the comments bring up some good questions over on the Why Our Look & Feel Isn't Available To Applications post. My response warrants a broader distribution than a comment in reply.

At Windows Vista launch (actually, probably at CES 07) you will see at least one example of 'what people want' which could not be accomplished solely with our look and feel. Again, those partners would not have wanted to adopt our brand, and I would have personally HATED to see them do so. I'll try to remember to post 'why' when those are made public. It's fairly easy to envision the kinds and types of apps which could be built with our look and feel in mind, and then build the platform to just accomplish those. But thats very limiting and, frankly, not very much of a challenge. It also doesn't 'push the envelope' which, in some respects, a platform needs to allow people to do. Also, one of the guiding principles for our platform is to not lock the entire world into our assumptions about what types of apps are wanted. We want to enable people to build things we can't envision. Just FWIW.

And, as many of you have noted, you can reference Microsoft DLLs and use resources straight out of them. Luckily most of you also note this is not supported, might violate some EULA along the way and (most importantly) may very well not work in later versions, etc.

Feel free to use those. Seriously. Party on. Go crazy. Knock yourself out.

But do understand we never tested, planned, scoped or have any plans to test app compatibility for this approach. It simply will not happen. Also note these resources are intended for internal Microsoft consumption only and we are free to change them at any time, without letting you know. Development work using this approach isn't valuable to us, so we will tend to ignore your feedback as it doesn't help further the platform. Also, I feel compelled to tell you there are things on the horizon for vNext which would make me personally shy away from using them. Yeah, I know, it sounds like I'm trying to use scare tactics. I'm not trying to do so -- I'm merely hoping to avoid having to come back later and say 'I told you so...' because someone is screaming 'Microsoft broke my app!' when they should have known better. Of course, now that I've posted this, I've told you so. :-)

Long story short: If you don't see it documented (editorial or code sample) in the SDK but you think it's still a valid, long term approach: Post a question to http://discuss.mediacentersandbox.com or (IF you have already posted to the discussion group) drop me an email.



Categories: Media Center Application Design | Windows Vista | Comments [3] | # | Posted on Sunday, December 10, 2006 5:41:56 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)   
Monday, December 11, 2006 5:56:58 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I think we all appreciate the addition of features we didnt know we needed, but as long as there are CORE features missing that makes MCE boarderline unusable for alot of us it really makes no sense at all.

Vista Media Center looks absolutely amazing. Browsing your CD collection has never been easyer or looked better. When I show this to my friends, who are of course potential buyers, they are ready to buy one right on the spot.

But from here on it's all downhill.

Then they want to see my DVD collection... ehhh. yeah. well. As good as Binnerups "MyMovies" addon is, it looks no-where as good as the rest of Vistamediacenter. The first reaction is .. "why is this CORE feature missing natively? why the heck would you want a mediacenter without ripping your dvd's to it?" No idear. its extremely illogical.

With the initial enthusiasm cooled down they want to know more. Show me TV. "Boy, the quality is terrible". Yeah, well, DVB-C is not supported so I have to use an analogue tuner. "why would they make a digital mediacenter and force you to use an analogue tuner?" No idear. its extremely illogical.

Next comment is always "It would be nice to be able to watch some tv on the computer in the office og or on the laptop in the garden every now and then" well, you can't really do that with mediacenter (unless you wanna carry your xbox360 around with you). "why would they make a mediacenter and not let your stream tv around the house to you laptop without the need for special hardware?" No idear. its extremely illogical.

It's allways the same discussion with people i show my mediacenter. The choice of implemented features are extremely illogical to say the least.
I don't get it, I go to the messageboards, noone gets it.

People are begging for CORE features, nothing more. Very basic and essential features, and ironically you write "It's fairly easy to envision the kinds and types of apps which could be built with our look and feel in mind, and then build the platform to just accomplish those. But thats very limiting and, frankly, not very much of a challenge. It also doesn't 'push the envelope'"
It might be easy and boring and trivial and whatever but EVERYONE ARE BEGGING FOR THEM, and it's extremely illogical you guys don't impliment them.
Essential CORE features for a media center, nothing fancy, and if you guys don't want to implement them, please give us the tools to do it ourselves in a NICE WAY.

It's that easy.



Pete
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:35:40 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Pete, I can appreciate your perspective. We try very hard to implement the most important features and take into account multiple data points. What might be a very high feature priority to a passionate group of online folks isn't as high when compared to all Windows Media Center users. Do keep in mind I'm not the owner of these end user features, but do evangelize (all the time) to my peers on these topics. That said, here's my response...

Ripped DVD Collection -- there are quite a few non-technical hurdles to overcome for us to deliver this functionality, not the least of which is the DMCA. And then, even if we go through the investment to make it a reality, the overall market for the feature is still very, very niche. We simply haven't seen the groundswell of support for ripping video (long format) like we did for audio (short format), if for no other reason folks are usually willing to get off the couch every hour or two while watching movies to change discs (great time for bathroom breaks). It's a pretty different mindset than listening to a 3 minute track. Also, mass market consumers are not typically going to invest in terabytes of storage -- yet -- it's too cost prohibitive. We may see a day when they do, but I'm willing to bet the avenues for getting that same content (at the same quality) via an online source will be available at around the same time.

DVB-* -- I would agree with you we stink on the European digital TV standard support, and generally speaking, I believe our TV team genuinely recognizes the shortcoming. The decision tree, if you see all of the factors, is logical -- but nonetheless, the outcome for our friends across the big pond still stinks. I do hope we get these in, and soon.

Watch TV on the laptop -- Well, you *can* watch Recorded TV content on a laptop -- simply set up a file share on the Media Center PC containing your recorded TV. Granted, it's not Softsled, but it's not 'carrying your XBox 360 with you either. :-) See the instructions located at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/using/laptoptv.mspx (I'll grant you these instructions talk about file copying, but can be used by the savvy person to stream those shows just as well).

My comment about envisioning is from the platform perspective, not end user features. For some features, the tools are in place for you to accomplish these features. Brian can write MyMovies in our new UI framework and be just as nice visually as Media Center, and you could also write a 'TV over my network feature' as well that aggregates Recorded TV from your LAN. I'll concede implementing DVB-* standards is outside the scope of our platform SDK -- yeah, that part still stinks.

Thanks for the feedback.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007 5:41:35 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Frankly, I think Microsoft is making a big mistake by not making Vista's Media Center "theme" accessible to developers. A HUGE hurdle that keeps me from developing for Media Center is that I'm not a designer, I don't have the skill to create the graphics necessary to build a slick Media Center UI, and I'm not going to go and build something that looks like crap.

If you look at how Windows development became so popular after Microsoft released VB, you can't ignore how the availability of standard Windows UI objects in VB eliminated a significant adoption hurdle for developers. Furthermore, it made it possible (though not necessarily a requirement) for developers to build GUIs that people could easily understand and use because they conformed to the standards that Microsoft had established.

Besides, I don't WANT each application I use to have an entirely different look and feel. That completely flies in the face of usability and design standards. Just take a look at some of the most popular MCE applications today, and many of them closely mimic MCE's design: mceWeather, My Movies, My Netflix, etc. Is this a coincidence? Of course not. They're familiar, attractive, and easy to use. Why, then, make the developers jump through hoops to recreate this look?

I honestly believe that this is a decision Microsoft needs to rethink. Frankly, I'm surprised that the success of MCE-themed third-party applications didn't lead to better Media Center UI design standards and support for Vista developers.
Comments are closed.
Search
Sign In | All Content © 2010 Charlie Owen

This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer.


Powered by newtelligence dasBlog 2.3.9074.18820