Using the standard UI gave me a few ideras as to where to improve. Here's a short list that I might extend later on. I also think one topic should be made for this, but foosion disagreed, and I won't challenge a mod that much.

Album art: Set images for when no image is found or when nothing is selected. Allow to disable downloaded album art.

Facets: Allow album art on the album facet to show. Allow to set what double clicking does.

Columns playlist: Hide column, show album art on group, or artist art, depending on what group. Allow to customize what the group title is in general. Allow more customizeability on this in general, it's a poor component right now, in my regard. Single Column mode would be great, where one column can only be used. To obsolete SCP perhaps (Though not Panels, not yet.)

Status bar: Allow to make it disappear, allow to set what double clicking does.

Buttons: Customize everything, from text displayed to what they do, of course. (If, text.) Allow the Main Menu from Foobar to be set as a button.

General: Allow to delete an element when you're looking at the element placeholder. Also, allow to delete any element, some seem to always be there.

I'll come up with more that I'd like to see soon, no doubt.

Basically, you want Columns UI and Panels UI - but wait, those are already available.

No, I like facets and I like the speed of the default UI, and the standard Windows look is neat as well, for a change. These are just improvements I'd like to see that are reminiscent of Panels and Columns. Also, I do want things that are already available, in some ways, but that's just life to me. I just want it in a different inplementation.

That sounded odd. Ah well, that's the way I think it is.

Already possible. Do a bit of research please in the album art viewer discussion topic.


See Facets FAQ.


It is called Playlist Vie UI Element; the Columns playlist (panel) is part of Columns UI. Hiding columns is already possible. Not everything will be configurable on this playlist view by choice.


No.


See "Known issues and feature proposals" topic.


I don't understand what you want here.


Please do more research next time before posting feature requests.

So, you like certain general aspects of the new default UI - i.e. its speed... or maybe how easy it is to use.... or how some elements are done....

However, what you and some other people dont seem to understand, is that the aspects of the default UI which they like, are just there BECAUSE it is in some ways not like CUI or PUI. For example, some people like that the default UI is so simple and easy - but at the same time, want it to become as configurable as CUI and PUI.

I think understanding and user-dev dialog could greatly improve, if users who make feature proposals become a bit more introspective and investigative regarding the software which they use. My observation is, that users really like the new default UI, but dont fully understand WHY they like it, and what made the default UI the way it is. When users become more aware about the reasons, for why they like the new default UI, then this would benefit those users as well as interaction with devs.

Well, a lot of the things I mentioned, I believe, are things that were possible in the past. Hiding the status bar, par example, was possible before, with the default UI too, I believe. The same goes for buttons, if I remember correctly.

The disabling of downloading album art is another example of what was available before, but, and I looked through all logical settings pages, but has disappeared now.

The same goes for setting what double click on status bar does.

Hiding column seems impossible, I'm talking about what you can click on to sort. You see, if I sort using it, it will never return to it's original sorting scheme and therefore I'll have to reload the playing list. I only use one column (Which doesn't seem to want to stay 100% when I edit the size of foobar, maybe this can be considered a bug) right now and therefore hardly ever need it.

I'm not trying to attack here, I'm not trying to make another Columns or Panels, I'm trying to help improve it, by requesting it. Lyx, I know you can disagree with me about what you want, heck, even the developers can, but it's not like I don't understand about how you want to keep it simple. But, to me, simple means simple to use, not stupided down. Yes, I have the opinion that the new Default UI is stupided down from Columns (It resembles it a lot but has fewer options) even though that's not the idea. I know, it's a beta, but some of the things (Buttons was covered, I read over it) I requested are new, fresh ideas.

I do not, however, understand why some things should be inconfigurable. Isn't that what other players are for? Is Foobar trying to become more of a people's program instead of a program for the elite? If so, then that is too bad, because it would mean that it isn't as original anymore.

I'm, again, not trying to attack, but trying to critique in the last two paragraphs I wrote here. Even if it doesn't affect the outcome, anyone who read this far has another view. So do I, now, since I read what you said. That's the view of making things simple.

I can agree that making things simple could help but I must disagree about making things less advanced when people want them to be. Especialy with facets not coming out for columns, ever, apparantly.

None of these things where ever possible in the default UI in the past. They are features of columns UI.



Album art certainly isn't downloaded by foobar2000. This has never been the case. FB2K only displays album art if it is there in the first place.



That was never possible with the default UI either. It also is a feature of columns UI.



I don't think Peter is considering to make columns headers removable. If you don't want to sort using columns headers you are still free to use the regular sort commands in the menu. Yes you can reverse a playlist to it's original state by using the "undo" command in the menu.



If you have the opinion that the new default UI is a "stupided" down version of Columns UI you are still free to use Columns UI as much as you like. After all Columns still works with 0.9.5. We certainly don't feel that the default UI is stupided down but that it was developed to give maximum usability with minimum configuration effort. If you disagree you are free to use any of the third party UIs.



Some things should be inconfigurable because it simply is unnessecary to confront the general user with options bloat. You apperently seem to forget that foobar2000 was never meant to be a prgram for the "elite" but rather a well designed music player for everyone. Apperently there are a lot of misconceptions about this. Sorry to disapoint you there. Overkill customizability was never the primary development goal of foobar2000 whatsoever but rather intropduced by various 3rd party comopnents. Wich is fine, since people are free to use those at will, that doesn't mean that the foobar2000 core itself is ever gonna go into that direction. This player was always designed with a "no compromise" attitude and in my opinion this is exactly made it what it is today in comparison to various other players. So again, don't confuse the development goals of some third party developers with the goals of the fooabr2000 core developers.


Personally I am not interpreting this as an attack whatsoever, but am simply replying to what is my own opnion on this matter. I know this wasn't directed at me, I just want to make sure to straighten things out in advance.



Things definitely aren't less advanced in our opinion. The reasons for this I have stated above.

Yes facets will never come out for columns UI since the developer decided to develop this component for the default UI. This is a perfectly understandable decision by the devloper and his good right to do so. This is just how things work. You decide to use a certain UI, that also means that you have to live with the components that are released for that specific UI. Nothing really that can change that. It is neither done out of hostility nor any other reasons like that but simply reality.

Not only the "no compromise" aspect, but also the full componentization of foobar2000 down to the UI. No other player is componentized to this level because it's hard to do and often not a great concern of developpers who prefer to offer a fixed, hardcoded UI which catters to the least common denominator.
For example I tried to sugest to the Amarok development team to componentize everything foobar style and they where not interested at all (too bad!). Btw it's not because it's componentized to the extreme that it is not newbie friendly: the new UI prove that.



I think it may be possible technically to write a plugin that expose columns UI panel as UI element or vice-versa. Now it may go against the licence and I'm quite confident the dev team would not welcome that...



I'll add one request to the WYSIWYG layout editor: undo/redo.
Not indispensable but that just would be nice to have

obviously coders made right step in taking over job from bloated titleformat and putting it where it belongs, making foobar slick and stable.

i just hope all this talk about foobar customizations not being important isn't something that will prevail tho, developers really should keep contact with userbase through polls or something, i can't think of any of foobar users i know that chose it for "no compromise" attitude.

Note the difference between the foobar2000 core developers, and third-party component developers. As core developers, nothing stops us from ignoring the wishes of users attracted by third-party components. We are free to choose a specific target audience for the core product and design it for them.

Hello.

I never said that users chose foobar for it's no compromise attitude. I merely said that the quality of the application is that good because of that.

EDIT: I also have to agree with Jens there, I certainly know quite a few that did choose it simply because of that reason.

of course it doesn't. if you want to hack your userbase to fifth nothing stops you from implementing gfy logo that blinks on every song. i think it's a waste, but there is nothing to be overly defensive about, there is nobody arguing your position or freedom as a developer

From a developer POV, polls are interesting for gauging how many user are interested in a certain feature. So, to determine usage. Basically to get an idea if there is significant interest in something at all - if almost no one will use something, its pointless to implement it.

Polls however are the worst means to decide about HOW a given feature (not an option) should be implemented. It is even an inefficient means to generally decide that a feature should be implemented. The two main reasons for this are quite simple:

1. Truth isn't democratic.
2. Users are not developers. A developers job isnt just hitting the keyboard really fast, but also to have a high understanding about software and usage concepts. Basically, in the development process, developers are the ones who are most skilled and designing and implementing something - thats their job. Users are typically good at finding problems and flaws. To put it really simple: devs are creators - users are testers (remember that the scope of this statement is just about the software-development process).

if that means, "we'll keep the features but decide how to implement them" than that is something i agree wholeheartedly with. i just thought current road-map is "fuck features"

If you compare the new default UI to the old default UI does this aproach really look like "fuck features" to you?

I would also recommend a look at the current changelog.

I'm not certain, but i think the cause of this impression may be, that some users see "options" and "features" as synonyms. From my observations, it seems to me that the devs currently do not consider "flexibility/features" and "simplicity" as mutually exclusive.

no it doesn't. it looks great for a start. if that start means default ui will offer enough customizations to take over 3rd party hacks, i'm more than glad to enjoy such future

I certainly wouldn't consider columnsUI a "hack" (if you're using the term derogatorily).

I think the changes in 0.9.5 are hardly comparable to a feature that is actively trying to scare away users.


My point was to stress that there is a difference between the goals of the official developers and that of third-party developers. I think that this distinction is not clear enough to many people.

Although I'm a novice user, and yes, some features from both Columns and Panels UIs I wish could be implemented (customizable backgrounds, lyrics, ability to change buttons), if the foobar core developers feel that such features are unnecessary/time-consuming/fleeting from their original belief of what foobar is, then it's trite and quite rude to keep bludgeoning them on such matters. Besides, I'm sure that third-party developers are finding ways to make their components work with the new default UI, especially of its current popularity !

I think a general explanation of efficiency regarding flexibility/unflexibility and simplicity/complexity may help users to understand the situation a bit better.

The main problem is that two properties are desired, which seem contradicting - but not necessary must be mutually exclusive: On the one hand, it is desired that an application is as simple and easy as possible. Simple tools are more efficient, because it means that we need to invest less effort into getting a task done.

On the other hand, flexibility is desired. The more flexible an app is, the more scenarios and needs it can cover - thus increasing usefulness.

The challenge is how to make something flexible, without also making it complex.

There are multiple levels on which this issue can be adressed. The more popular one is modularization - called plugins. This allows the user to only install those main features, which he wants. That way, unnecessary main features are kept out - thus reducing overall complexity. That way, an app is overally only as complex as it needs to be per user. This is the reason, why talented developers tend to reject feature proposals, which are not the point of the plugin in question.

However, this only addresses the "macro-level" of things. It doesnt do anything about the micro-level - for example, the individual features and complexity of a single plugin.

At this point, an explanation about what "efficiency" is may be needed. Something is efficient, if it is "good enough" with minimum possible "costs". As a very abstract example, consider the following: You have a clock and want to know what time is it. How accurate should this clock be? Should it display miliseconds? Are even seconds needed? There is no such thing as perfection or "infinitely acccurate". It doesnt matter either, if it is just "good enough" for our tasks. In the clock-scenario you can also see the "costs" - the more accurate the clock becomes, the more difficult it becomes to quickly read it. You cannot just magically ignore the displayed unnecessary information - even ignorance is tied to an effort. The same is true for "options" - options are never "for free" - they have a cost. Anyone who ever used a full blown office app should know that.

Now back to the point. How does one make a component efficient as in "highest flexibility/complexity ratio"? There are multiple aspects - the general one for a public application is: Efficiency is reached, if an app's flexibility is "good enough" for most reasonable people, while keeping complexity as low as possible.

You can only reach this state, if you shoot for the "good enough" approach. It is most of the time not possible, to keep complexity down, if you try to make it "perfect for everyone". In the case of foobar: if a component tries to make every single nut and bolt configurable and add an option for everything, so that some idealistic users can make it "perfect" for them - then ease-of-use and simplicity will be killed. It is not possible to get infinite flexibility without infinite complexity. If however you shoot for the "good enough" target, then the rules change dramatically, and it actually becomes possible to achieve that, while keeping complexity down. This is why the Default UI allows customization, but not infinite customization - the goal is to make it "good enough" for reasonable people, not to make it "perfect" - that way, complexity doesnt get out of control.

There is another aspect, which often isn't considered: flexibility doesnt always need options. Actually, the most userfriendly case is if the user doesnt need to do anything because the application automatically adapts. Options only need to be there, if the app cannot adapt automatically, without significant problems.

- Lyx

Well, I've figured out my mistake during some of my posts, or parts of it. I thought foosion was the devloper of Columns and therefore his work was being worked into the main UI. I stand corrected that this wasn't the vision of the main developers, yes.

I seem to remember the default UI a little differently, then, I probably confused it with columns.

That should explain my previous vision of dumbed down. Now, I just see it as an improvement of the default UI. That it's not as good as Columns yet, for me, that matters not. I thought it was to replace Columns, though have different features.

I do still have the same feature requests, whether they were already shot down or not doesn't matter, I still request them. I hope that they will someday make it in there to strike that balance Foobar developers (And I believe the first party ones do, also) between settings and ease of use. This is also what the Advanced tab is, in my opinion for.

On behalf of the album art, I'd like an explenation then of where a certain album art picture is coming from, because I don't see it on my hard drive and I believe Foobar developers were against using tags as storing images. Plus, I have never seen it on any other player either and is certainly something I'd want to delete. Any thoughts on this?

Lastly, Lyx, great post, and very good bit of text to read. You've a point, yes.

Well you did spawn an interesting discussion for sure



As stated in the changelog of the beta it does support embedded album art. I would recommend using a tag editor like mp3tag to check your files and delete the embedded album art if nessecary.

Albumart viewer element uses multiple "patterns" to search for album art. One of them is "*cover.<imageExtension>". Another one is "folder.<imageExtension>".
I think at this point, it is quite probable, that those patterns may be extended to cover more cases. A lot of users tend to either request how it works, or request customizability. However, from my experience i think its probable, that the developers are mostly interested about specific cases, where the automatic search does not work.


Thanks :-)