Spaceboy 2493 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 8 hours ago, Luke said: Hi, the interface is fully designed for TV's. What makes you think it is designed for a phone? the long list of unremediated points on its suitability for use on a TV? you may say its designed for use on a TV but wide ranging user feedback has been provided that it is poorly designed for tv usage. you can't just ignore that. well, you can and are, but it doesnt resolve the issue 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBers 6771 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 How many more threads can we beat up Luke in, over the issues with the standard android app The UI is slow, the app is so much slower to start-up than the ATV app, and generally it's not on the same level of UX as the ATV app. Seriously though, if the "Convert Unsupported Audio to DD" option was in the app, I could probably use it every day, but it isn't and as I have been waiting almost 2 years for it to be added, I really can't be bothered with keep trying it. This is all documented here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stslimited84 0 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Is there any updates or fixes in the works for the firetv app? I tried using the android app as suggested but it only allows one minute play back as I don't have premiere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37071 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 On 3/21/2024 at 11:12 PM, stslimited84 said: Is there any updates or fixes in the works for the firetv app? I tried using the android app as suggested but it only allows one minute play back as I don't have premiere. Hi, did it perform correctly during the one minute test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecrispy 23 Posted April 3 Author Share Posted April 3 @Luke, is the Android Tv Emby app being developed or is it abandoned? You seem to be suggesting we should use the Android phone app on the tv? In that case the ATV app should be removed from the app stores, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37071 Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 hours ago, ecrispy said: @Luke, is the Android Tv Emby app being developed or is it abandoned? You seem to be suggesting we should use the Android phone app on the tv? In that case the ATV app should be removed from the app stores, no? HI, we are working on unifying the two into one, and yes eventually that will mean the store as well. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecrispy 23 Posted April 4 Author Share Posted April 4 13 hours ago, Luke said: HI, we are working on unifying the two into one, and yes eventually that will mean the store as well. Thanks. thank you, thats great to hear! I know this is not the place to ask, but if I may - would it be possible to implement a unified UI that could be used by all clients? perhaps based on html? I believe this is what Netflix and I think Plex have done? It will simplify dev efforts after the initial change and allow for much faster iteration. and of course the web interface for Emby is so much nicer and more functional, I would love to have that everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbjtech 4270 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 20 minutes ago, ecrispy said: thank you, thats great to hear! I know this is not the place to ask, but if I may - would it be possible to implement a unified UI that could be used by all clients? perhaps based on html? I believe this is what Netflix and I think Plex have done? It will simplify dev efforts after the initial change and allow for much faster iteration. and of course the web interface for Emby is so much nicer and more functional, I would love to have that everywhere. That is exactly what emby are attempting to do. My personal opinion is that is not always optimal for the platform being used - as there are fundamental differences between using a mouse/keyboard on a browser, a touch screen (on a phone or tablet) and using a modern limited 6 button remote control on a TV. I get you want the same 'look and feel' of the app - but the 'control' mechanisms are very different - and thus you need to factor that into the UI design. As an example, selecting chapters or fwd/rwd on tablet is easy, selecting chapters or fwd/rwd on the Android version of the unified app (not AndroidTV/FireTV) is just plain awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecrispy 23 Posted April 5 Author Share Posted April 5 15 hours ago, rbjtech said: That is exactly what emby are attempting to do. My personal opinion is that is not always optimal for the platform being used - as there are fundamental differences between using a mouse/keyboard on a browser, a touch screen (on a phone or tablet) and using a modern limited 6 button remote control on a TV. I get you want the same 'look and feel' of the app - but the 'control' mechanisms are very different - and thus you need to factor that into the UI design. As an example, selecting chapters or fwd/rwd on tablet is easy, selecting chapters or fwd/rwd on the Android version of the unified app (not AndroidTV/FireTV) is just plain awkward. Yes, the UX will be different. But writing it in HTML, something like React, makes it much easier to have a single UI/UX that can work on different screen resolutions, is responsive layout, and works on touch also. There are libraries that do just that. A lot of websites also do this so they can be used on a phone and on pc. Things like tooltips, popovers etc have to be done differently for touch. I think this part is actually the easier part, compared to implementing things like long lists of scrolling items, caching, data fetching etc. I've built similar apps before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37071 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 18 hours ago, rbjtech said: That is exactly what emby are attempting to do. My personal opinion is that is not always optimal for the platform being used - as there are fundamental differences between using a mouse/keyboard on a browser, a touch screen (on a phone or tablet) and using a modern limited 6 button remote control on a TV. I get you want the same 'look and feel' of the app - but the 'control' mechanisms are very different - and thus you need to factor that into the UI design. As an example, selecting chapters or fwd/rwd on tablet is easy, selecting chapters or fwd/rwd on the Android version of the unified app (not AndroidTV/FireTV) is just plain awkward. It's not that it's awkward or has anything to do with html or whatever technology the app is built with. It is a design decision to prioritize getting to the audio/subtitle menus quicker as opposed to chapters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbjtech 4270 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, Luke said: It's not that it's awkward or has anything to do with html or whatever technology the app is built with. It is a design decision to prioritize getting to the audio/subtitle menus quicker as opposed to chapters. If I'm already watching an episode or movie - why would I then want to change the audio or subtitles ? When playing - the priority of quick/easy/least invasive navigation should be applied for that scenerio - and buttons can change and be used for different things. In the case of AndroidTV - when playing - pressing 'Up' on the remote brings up the chapters/timeline whilst play continues - ie you want to find a particular chapter but you don't want to interupt playback while doing so as only the chapters are shown, no other unrelated menu items are shown on the screen. Perfect. Button count = 1. If I want to find a particular scene not on a chapter point (ie 'from' a chapter point) , again, all without stopping the current playback/position with minimal screen intrusion, then I just press 'Down'. Button count = 2. OK to play from that point once I've found what I want to see. To note, the chapters shown are also proportionally spaced - so you get to see more relevant chapters from where you are. ie if you are at the start of the video, then you'll see more chapters further in, if you are nearing the end, then you'll see more previously shown. Intelligent and useful. The standard App in comparison is - 'Down' (half the screen is now filled with and 'Info' screen that I never asked for - along with the menus .. so I click right, chapters are now shown (but no timeline), I now have to click down and can select the chapter. All very invasive to the screen - the large white menu's really throw off what's playing. That's 3 button presses just to get to the chapters. I can't actually do anything other than select the chapter here - the fwd/rwd functionality from a chapter point doesn't actually exist. Chapters on the standard app are pretty basic - the one highlighted is on the far left, meaning you only ever see 2 chapters in advance, you have no idea what chapters have passed (if you're looking for something) and no idea how many chapters you have in front of you because there is no timeline .. It's the polish/user interactions on the AndroidTV app that make it still the best client by far. So yes, design decision or not, the standard app is very awkward vs AndroidTV Edited April 5 by rbjtech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now