PDA

View Full Version : SC Interfaces...why so few?



ntang
2009-02-04, 00:42
Hi

I am just wondering howcome there are so few choices when it comes to interfaces for the web? Is there a place where there are more than the few that exist on the slimdevices site?

I feel that Logitech Slimdevices does not put enough emphasis on the web interface...look and feel/usability

Mark Lanctot
2009-02-04, 06:41
It's open source - sorry to sound blunt, but if you want one, make one.

They support the default interface and the Classic one. Others were made by ordinary users who wanted something different.

st2000
2009-02-04, 07:29
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> It's open source - sorry to sound blunt, but if you want one, make one.
>
> They support the default interface and the Classic one. Others were
> made by ordinary users who wanted something different.

Just to make things clear, SqueezeCenter (the PERL program running on
your computer) is open sourced. It's been that way since the beginning
of the project. That's been about a decade hasn't it? Because of that
maturity, you'll probably have a hard time convincing the core
developers to include new features. The way around that problem is to
develop a "plug in application". This way the core code does not change
and people who are interested can pick up your new features just by
installing it. The draw back is that you may need to update / maintain
the plug in should the plug in interface change.


The firmware inside the SqueezeBoxes and the SqueezeBox hardware designs
are not open sourced. However, there is enough protocol information
available to create an client application from scratch on your computer
(the simplest I know of is slimp3slave), on other thin media clients
(try slimroku) or even as a pluging for other opensource projects (try
mythsqueezebox).

I think it best to create your feature as a plug rather then on the
target. As a plug in it would be more widely accepted and should be
available to any type of SqueezeCenter client. However, you will need
to leave the computer on to get your internet feed. As code targeting
the client, you might be able to turn off your computer and still listen
to an internet feed. But you would have a very "narrow" user group if
one at all.

Mark Lanctot
2009-02-04, 07:44
I believe the OP was referring to the web skins, which (if you know HTML, CSS, AJAX etc.) are much easier to develop than an alternate server.

But it seems like there have been no new third-party web skins for quite a while now - the iPeng skin excepted, but that's a special case. Perhaps this is because the SC 7 web interface has so much Java/AJAX that it's hard to make something comparable using standard static web links.

Despite the OP not liking the current skin, it's come a long way. The pre-7.0 skin looked mostly like the Classic skin. So there has been lots of progress here.

st2000
2009-02-04, 08:23
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> I believe the OP was referring to the web skins, which (if you know
> HTML, CSS, AJAX etc.) are much easier to develop than an alternate
> server.
>
> But it seems like there have been no new third-party web skins for
> quite a while now - the iPeng skin excepted, but that's a special case.
> Perhaps this is because the SC 7 web interface has so much Java/AJAX
> that it's hard to make something comparable using standard static web
> links.
>
> Despite the OP not liking the current skin, it's come a long way. The
> pre-7.0 skin looked mostly like the Classic skin. So there has been
> lots of progress here

Opps, my bad.

dgos
2009-02-04, 20:28
I was actually just wondering the same thing and thinking that maybe I was just missing something as there seems to be so many other things I thought there might be more skins created. I didn't have as much of a need before but I now have a netbook that is out in more of a high traffic area now so I was using the "touch" skin but it doesn't quite work perfect on the 1024x600 screen... you have to scroll to see the controls at the bottom (although I haven't tried it with any browser except IE)

PS. Fishbone works pretty well if you want to have access to a bunch of info.

aubuti
2009-02-04, 21:40
I was using the "touch" skin but it doesn't quite work perfect on the 1024x600 screen... you have to scroll to see the controls at the bottom (although I haven't tried it with any browser except IE)
You should try it with a different browser. I recall that IE gave the developer fits because it doesn't follow standards. It has worked well for me with Firefox, although I've never tried it on a screen with exactly that resolution.

Mnyb
2009-02-04, 22:20
Hi

I am just wondering howcome there are so few choices when it comes to interfaces for the web? Is there a place where there are more than the few that exist on the slimdevices site?

I feel that Logitech Slimdevices does not put enough emphasis on the web interface...look and feel/usability

Well the web-UI is not the main interface to use with the product.
The ir -remote or controller is no 1 user interface. Web-UI is more of an "admin" thing.
One of the deign goals was to "free you from the computer" meaning the server is humming somhwere else NOT where you listening to music and have multipple SB's around your house controlled by remotes or controllers.

But web-UI is getting more important as the trend towards more laptops at home is getting folks to have a laptop as a "jumbo" remote controll.

Me going the otherway around, got myself squeezeplay so i can listen also when using my PC (not bringing PC to listening environment to use while listening to music ).

ntang
2009-02-05, 00:50
It's open source - sorry to sound blunt, but if you want one, make one.

They support the default interface and the Classic one. Others were made by ordinary users who wanted something different.

Hi

I am not a technical person. I have purchased 5 Duets and 2 SB3 Classics. I do not understand why I need to build anything myself as a consumer. All I was asking is howcome there are so few interfaces/skins. I had in mind my laptop or one of those sleek all-in-one desktops which I thought of using , soolos-style, where I'd put it on the table for people to easily interact with and view the Slimdevices system

The current skins are not very attractive and functional for such tasks I think.

JJZolx
2009-02-05, 01:59
Skinning the web interface is a major undertaking due to the internal architecture of the server. It's almost a full time job maintaining the one interface that Logitech fully supports.

pippin
2009-02-05, 02:05
Tried Moose?
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56970
or muso
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57629

There's a lot of 3rd party interfaces around. It kind of turned out that skins give you very similar results and generally a lot of people feel the responsiveness of the WebUI is too low (part of the problem here is that a lot of people are running SC on low spec systems) so there are quite a few interface applications around that are not exactly skins.

mherger
2009-02-05, 02:17
> Skinning the web interface is a major undertaking due to the internal
> architecture of the server. It's almost a full time job maintaining
> the one interface that Logitech fully supports.

Ahm... who the heck is doing that job?!? Poor guy, I wouldn't want to have to spend even one single full day a week with it...

Believe me: maintaining the skins nowadays is only a very small part of my job.

--

Michael

JJZolx
2009-02-05, 02:49
Believe me: maintaining the skins nowadays is only a very small part of my job.

Good to hear. From the sounds of it, there's not much new work planned for the web interface.

jeffmeh
2009-02-05, 06:04
Hi

I am not a technical person. I have purchased 5 Duets and 2 SB3 Classics. I do not understand why I need to build anything myself as a consumer. All I was asking is howcome there are so few interfaces/skins. I had in mind my laptop or one of those sleek all-in-one desktops which I thought of using , soolos-style, where I'd put it on the table for people to easily interact with and view the Slimdevices system

The current skins are not very attractive and functional for such tasks I think.

If you are running Windows, you should probably take a look at Moose.

EyeRonik1
2009-02-05, 17:14
Tried Moose?
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56970
or muso
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57629

There's a lot of 3rd party interfaces around. It kind of turned out that skins give you very similar results and generally a lot of people feel the responsiveness of the WebUI is too low (part of the problem here is that a lot of people are running SC on low spec systems) so there are quite a few interface applications around that are not exactly skins.

Unfortunately none of them run on the Mac or Linux.

I'd like to see real iTunes integration. iTunes has a protocol to drive remote speakers, and it's simpler than what the SB uses. THAT would be useful and cool. I just think it's too hard to do - it requires real programming, not just something in a scripting language.

pippin
2009-02-05, 19:11
Unfortunately none of them run on the Mac or Linux.

I'd like to see real iTunes integration. iTunes has a protocol to drive remote speakers, and it's simpler than what the SB uses. THAT would be useful and cool. I just think it's too hard to do - it requires real programming, not just something in a scripting language.

No, it requires a license from Apple.
Also, iTunes sucks. Gets the price for the App crashing most frequently on my Mac.

jo-wie
2009-02-05, 20:25
... iTunes has a protocol to drive remote speakers, and it's simpler than what the SB uses. THAT would be useful and cool ...

Airfoil? http://rogueamoeba.com/

Mnyb
2009-02-05, 22:03
There's another difference folk fails to understand and apriciate.

Itunes plays files on your pc/mac

SqueezeCenter streams files to you player, meaning that you are independent of the crappy sound software (windows Kmixer anyone etc ) and the PC hardware.
Your SC server won't need working sound at all.

But as pippin said the major hurdle is Apple they want you to use their stuff.
That is also the explanation to why you can't play itunes drm files on the SB.
(maybe thats moot now when drm on itms is going away ).

But anyway ANY web-UI (not only SC ) is crippled compared to a real program so why web-UI ?

*Works on every platform.

*Works remotely, you can acess the server and control SC from every computer or thing on your network that has a web browser. Important for us with a headless server or nas and usefull to everybody else.

*can be made to work at even more remote locations with the rigth port forwarding or ssh or similar. Controll SC away from home.

And using itunes winamp foobar etc to drive the SqueezeBoxes is counter to the whole SB idea it is NOT a longer cable from your soundcard.

erland
2009-02-05, 23:38
I'd like to see real iTunes integration. iTunes has a protocol to drive remote speakers, and it's simpler than what the SB uses. THAT would be useful and cool.

If you really just want remote speakers which you control from a standard computer, I think you will be better of with one of the Apple products.

If you want a music device in the room you are sitting in which also can be controlled from the room you are sitting in (which might not be the room which the computer is standing in), the Squeezebox products are starting to show their advantages.

pippin
2009-02-06, 00:56
There's another difference folk fails to understand and apriciate.

Itunes plays files on your pc/mac


No, I think OP's talking about AirTunes streaming.

mwjburton
2009-02-06, 02:16
I had in mind my laptop or one of those sleek all-in-one desktops which I thought of using , soolos-style, where I'd put it on the table for people to easily interact with and view the Slimdevices system

Try SqueezePlay with the 'Desktop' and 'Fullscreen' options selected in Skin Settings.

Uluen
2009-02-06, 03:43
I didn't have as much of a need before but I now have a netbook that is out in more of a high traffic area now so I was using the "touch" skin but it doesn't quite work perfect on the 1024x600 screen... you have to scroll to see the controls at the bottom (although I haven't tried it with any browser except IE)You know about pressing F11 (on Windows at least) to get fullscreen and that you can make the text larger and smaller by holding CTRL + mouse scroll I guess?

EyeRonik1
2009-02-06, 20:09
If you really just want remote speakers which you control from a standard computer, I think you will be better of with one of the Apple products.

If you want a music device in the room you are sitting in which also can be controlled from the room you are sitting in (which might not be the room which the computer is standing in), the Squeezebox products are starting to show their advantages.

But why not have both? The Squeezecenter interface is alien and cumbersome for ordinary people compared to iTunes, so I'm the only one in the household who's learned how to use it. If playing a song on iTunes also fired up a Squeezebox, life would be cool.

Also, I can control a box running iTunes using the Remote app on my iPhone, as you know, so the main advantages (for me) of Squeezeboxes are 1) the display and 2) all the music services (such as Pandora and Slacker) and 3) the customizability. The remote control is not a big advantage any more.

pbg
2009-02-06, 23:22
Well the web-UI is not the main interface to use with the product.
The ir -remote or controller is no 1 user interface. Web-UI is more of an "admin" thing.
One of the deign goals was to "free you from the computer" meaning the server is humming somhwere else NOT where you listening to music and have multipple SB's around your house controlled by remotes or controllers.

But web-UI is getting more important as the trend towards more laptops at home is getting folks to have a laptop as a "jumbo" remote controll.

Me going the otherway around, got myself squeezeplay so i can listen also when using my PC (not bringing PC to listening environment to use while listening to music ).

That’s an interesting comment. I bought a Transporter and Controller, and found the Controller slow in response and not what I expected. I use the Transporter's remote more than the controller (faster response) . I have found myself primarily controlling stuff with SqueezeCenter from a PC in another room.

I’m thinking about getting one of those mini laptops or tablet PC’s to control things with SqueezeCenter. I don’t mind the current interface, and besides for me it’s the quality of the delivery more than whatever you fire it off from. The Transporter is great, but let’s face it, as it stands SqueezeCenter is very dated in appearance, and lacks quite a bit of its competitor’s bling.

Mark Lanctot
2009-02-06, 23:42
letís face it, as it stands SqueezeCenter is very dated in appearance, and lacks quite a bit of its competitorís bling.

I've been reading this a lot lately. Seriously? Are we talking about the latest SC 7.3.2? Really? What else are you looking for?

Check out the Classic interface (rather than Default) to see how far they've come.

pbg
2009-02-07, 00:13
I've been reading this a lot lately. Seriously? Are we talking about the latest SC 7.3.2? Really? What else are you looking for?

Check out the Classic interface (rather than Default) to see how far they've come.

certainly I donít want to dis any accomplishments that have been made. I looked at the Classic interface, and though it may represent a piece of Squeeze's storied history, it probably wouldn't be missed if it was removed as an option. As I've said, SqueezeCenter is functional, and for me, itís the quality of the sound coming out the speakers thatís its all about.

But, because you askedÖ.

Get rid of the grey backgrounds. Black type on grey though legible, is ugly and more so, dated!

Drag and drop, or some ability to select multiple songs from either pane to add or remove

It would be nice to able to edit within SqueezeCenter. Tags, etcÖ.

There's a more, but its late...

Mark Lanctot
2009-02-07, 00:19
certainly I donít want to dis any accomplishments that have been made.

I didn't get that impression, I just wanted to understand.


Drag and drop, or some ability to select multiple songs from either pane to add or remove

This was added to 7.0 and has been working for a while now.


It would be nice to able to edit within SqueezeCenter. Tags, etcÖ.

That's a fundamental and purposeful design decision. A minor error in the program could destroy a music library. Even programs that are designed to do this (Mp3tag, for example) can do this very thing if they're not properly configured.

pbg
2009-02-07, 00:48
I didn't get that impression, I just wanted to understand.


That's a fundamental and purposeful design decision. A minor error in the program could destroy a music library. Even programs that are designed to do this (Mp3tag, for example) can do this very thing if they're not properly configured.

Wow, I've tried ALT-SHIFT, highlighting stuff. I'll consult the WIKI for proper tutelage - Thats certainly a great plus. Thanks for the tip-

I’m learning on the fly, and having a GREAT time. The product is superb, its all a learning process.

--------------
This morning I checked the WIKI and couldn't find anything - How would I select multiple items from either pane?

I'm running Version: 7.3.2 - 24695 Operating system: Netgear RAIDiator - EN - utf8 Platform Architecture: i686-linux

Thanks!
pbg

Mark Lanctot
2009-02-07, 12:11
Wow, I've tried ALT-SHIFT, highlighting stuff. I'll consult the WIKI for proper tutelage - Thats certainly a great plus. Thanks for the tip-

Iím learning on the fly, and having a GREAT time. The product is superb, its all a learning process.

--------------
This morning I checked the WIKI and couldn't find anything - How would I select multiple items from either pane?

I'm running Version: 7.3.2 - 24695 Operating system: Netgear RAIDiator - EN - utf8 Platform Architecture: i686-linux

Thanks!
pbg

I don't believe there's anything in the wiki about it. I don't use it myself. I thought you could drag items from the left pane to the right pane, but I can't. However I can reorder the current playlist by dragging and dropping.

pbg
2009-02-07, 12:31
I don't believe there's anything in the wiki about it. I don't use it myself. I thought you could drag items from the left pane to the right pane, but I can't. However I can reorder the current playlist by dragging and dropping.

Thanks for checking Ė

I would think that would be a nice enhancement. So for example, if I wanted to select the first 3 songs off a record to play, one could ALT-SHIFT, ALT-CTRL or highlight them and drag the lot, as opposed to selecting each one individually.

Same thing in the Playing Pan. If that thing was loaded up, and if you wanted to remove certain songs, It would be nice to be able to ALT-CTRL or highlight several of them instead of yanking them off one at a time.

Mark Lanctot
2009-02-07, 12:33
Suggest an enhancement at http://bugs.slimdevices.com?

rksingla
2009-02-07, 14:37
I have adopted the Squeeze system over the past four months and love it. But my wife is ambivalent: the controller response is a little quirky and slower than she expects and the Web interface is also a little quirky and slow to load large music libraries. Non-technical people now expect a lot more from technology, including an intuitive interface, no lags, and a rich GUI experience.

I have seen muso and Moose, and those models make sense. (Unfortunately, we have a Mac.) But a stand alone PC/Mac/Linux client from LogiTech could deliver a full screen experience, permit drag and drop, iTunes style "cover flow", load the library in the background for fast response, etc., etc. -- while permitting a separate always-on, low power server to stream music.

If Logitech wants to move beyond people with technical skills/patience to a mass market product, it has to move beyond the "no-PC" heritage and develop a solid client side application. Non-technical people love their laptops and iTunes. No remote contol cannot replace the rich experience that a computer screen/keyboard/mouse provides. LogiTech need something like iTunes that controls the server and the sound systems in their house.

EyeRonik1
2009-02-07, 18:12
If Logitech wants to move beyond people with technical skills/patience to a mass market product, it has to move beyond the "no-PC" heritage and develop a solid client side application. Non-technical people love their laptops and iTunes. No remote contol cannot replace the rich experience that a computer screen/keyboard/mouse provides. LogiTech need something like iTunes that controls the server and the sound systems in their house.

Well said. I keep pushing an iTunes plugin because it's ubiquitous, but I would be perfectly happy with a multi-platform client that borrows from the UI.

Songbird would be an excellent candidate. It's already on all of the platforms, and open source to boot. I'd switch.

Check out Songbird. It looks pretty sweet.
http://getsongbird.com/

trotsky10
2009-02-12, 00:56
I created a web based skin but ended up writing it in java as I had experience with that. It just means you need to add a web app server like jetty and add my app squeezenmt to it. The interface is then fully xsl skinnable for people to change if they want.

I have just gotten an iPhone also and it works great with that too though I may create a new skin at some point. Ipeng has more functionality but for simple browsing and playlists I use my skin.

It can be found at code.google.com search for squeezenmt

I wrote it for the popcorn hour but use it myself on the pc and iPhone also :-)

GeeJay
2009-02-14, 07:32
You know about pressing F11 (on Windows at least) to get fullscreen and that you can make the text larger and smaller by holding CTRL + mouse scroll I guess?

I just got SC loaded on my new netbook and have been experimenting with the Touch skin. I like the look, but the problem I'm having (and it appears others are as well) is that if you go fullscreen and make the text larger you lose the controls at the bottom. When you size it so that you can see all the controls there is lots of white space between the progress bar and the controls. I imagine if I had a standard screen instead of a widescreen it might not be as noticeable.

Looks like another opportunity for me to post an enhancement request....?

jo-wie
2009-02-15, 06:34
I just got SC loaded on my new netbook and have been experimenting with the Touch skin. I like the look, but the problem I'm having (and it appears others are as well) is that if you go fullscreen and make the text larger you lose the controls at the bottom. When you size it so that you can see all the controls there is lots of white space between the progress bar and the controls. I imagine if I had a standard screen instead of a widescreen it might not be as noticeable.

Looks like another opportunity for me to post an enhancement request....?

Try Squeezeplay with the desktop skin fullscreen if you need hughe letters.