I realize that. But that was early in the thread and since then no one from Plex has stooped to add anything more. In the face of such disapproval from serious users Plex has been silent. There's something fishy about being this hard-headed about a bad decision.
I haven't added anything more because there isn't really anything new to add. I've done my best to explain the rationale of the design team, and nothing has changed in the meantime. I (and others) continue to read the threads.
This is not a feature, it is a "mistake on purpose." Can't figure out why they're doing it.
Then go back and re-read Schuyler's posts that explain why they did it. Just because YOU think it's a mistake doesn't make it so.
Then go back and re-read Schuyler's posts that explain why they did it. Just because YOU think it's a mistake doesn't make it so.
You know these conversations are getting old real fast, we all know there are a lot of people that don't like this and there is a simple fix. Talk to the rest of your dev team and tell them to add a blur off/on option in the client. It's not hard to do and can simply be added. I'm quite sure the dev team is quite capable of adding this and there is no excuse for this not to happen. I have spent hours picking and choosing fanart for all the titles in my collection and at this point it was a huge waste of time.I haven't added anything more because there isn't really anything new to add. I've done my best to explain the rationale of the design team, and nothing has changed in the meantime. I (and others) continue to read the threads.
You know these conversations are getting old real fast, we all know there are a lot of people that don't like this and there is a simple fix. Talk to the rest of your dev team and tell them to add a blur off/on option in the client. It's not hard to do and can simply be added. I'm quite sure the dev team is quite capable of adding this and there is no excuse for this not to happen. I have spent hours picking and choosing fanart for all the titles in my collection and at this point it was a huge waste of time.
Choice is always better and pleases everybody.
It's not like we're asking for open heart surgery here Lol
You've done a great job with this new client, don't stop now.
While I agree and would really like the choice what we don't know is if it is really easy. There might be a real performance hit in rendering full resolution that could adversely effect the performance of the channel or render some parts of the code inoperative.
We don't know if having full def artwork might make the channel unstable due to memory limitations or some such.
If the only issue is cosmetic the I think we should be given choice but I think that to say that there is "No excuse" is not really an informed comment.
Now, one more thing: I think that since the developers have released the channel for testing they really should be more forthcoming particularly about what is going into decisions about things that many folks are complaining about.
If the issue with the blur is not performance and it is not easy to make it a toggle maybe they should temporarily release a version with the blur off to see how it is received. One thing I remember from my development days is that developers can have a VERY different view of visual effects in the user interface. What the developers may see as bad or poor users may see as good or even pretty.
But if at all possible choice should be provided as that will please more people than forcing only one choice no matter what that choice is.
You know these conversations are getting old real fast
This is perhaps the only thing on which we agree 100%. :[
I've tried to be extremely forthcoming on this issue and have engaged on the thread (mostly the one in the Roku forum). When people have speculated that we're doing this for performance reasons, I've tried to nip that in the bud and clarify that it's purely a design decision. When people have suggested that we add a preference to control it, I've tried to explain why we're not eager to add many cosmetic preferences, especially during the preview period.
I'm very glad to have this discussion and the opinions expressed. I'm very glad to have a place where people can vote on this. I'm obviously continuing to read and relay all feedback. I just wish we were all communicating a little more clearly and respectfully. Speculation that this is the first step in a secret plan to replace artwork with extortionary ads that have to be removed by paying money (the other thread) makes me want to engage less often, not more. Anyway, if you want a bottom line then it's this: the current behavior is purely a design decision, which will be increasingly common across all the platforms, and there are no current plans to change it; but we're always listening to feedback.
I know I said that was the bottom line, but I guess I have a parting thought. Try to imagine how differently the feedback can be received based on the tone. For example:
I have spent hours picking and choosing fanart for all the titles in my collection and at this point it was a huge waste of time.
This is a really important point. Even the people who overwhelmingly prefer a blurred treatment are highly sensitive to this issue and want to make sure we find a way to showcase high quality artwork. A backdrop on a busy page is arguably not the place to showcase high quality artwork. But maybe there are other places where that artwork can shine. Anyway, that's not even my point, my point is just that that's a great comment, and that sort of feedback is infinitely more constructive in this discussion than some of the other comments. Keep it coming. :]
"I've done my best to explain the rationale of the design team,"
Schuyler, I don't think you have "explained the rationale of the design team" at all. If you carefully read back over this thread, you have 1) "adamantly" denied that it's a bug, and 2) that it was done on purpose. That's all. No "rationale." The definition of "rationale" is the "reasoning" for an action or decision. In other words, "why." Do you feel you have said -anything- that explains "why" this is being done?
Well on the bright side, at least the design team and that one guy in the other thread are happy. :P
schuyler, on 27 Feb 2015 - 3:44 PM, said:
(Don't take this as any indication of what we will or won't do, just trying to answer a few questions...)
Making the level of blur some sort of slider preference isn't necessarily impossible, but it's not as trivial as it seems at first glance. Take it as a given that you want artwork as a backdrop on a screen, and that you're going to have some text on the screen. You'll have to do something, since just showing text on the artwork isn't going to be legible. Maybe you dim the backdrop, maybe you blur it, maybe you stroke the text, maybe you put the text on a sort of "sheet" with some opacity that effectively dims that part of the backdrop. And maybe you do a little bit of more than one of those things. These are the sorts of things the designers play with. You can't decide to dim by a factor of X and then expose a slider for the amount of blur in isolation, you'll end up with combinations that hurt legibility. Blur in general provides some "texture" on the screen, and the combination of more blur and less dim allows for a brighter backdrop. Anyway, just trying to answer a couple of the questions, all of this feedback is super valuable.
Schuyler, I don't think you have "explained the rationale of the design team" at all. If you carefully read back over this thread, you have 1) "adamantly" denied that it's a bug, and 2) that it was done on purpose. That's all. No "rationale." The definition of "rationale" is the "reasoning" for an action or decision. In other words, "why." Do you feel you have said -anything- that explains "why" this is being done?
"Maybe you dim the backdrop, maybe you blur it, maybe you stroke the text, maybe you put the text on a sort of "sheet" with some opacity that effectively dims that part of the backdrop. And maybe you do a little bit of more than one of those things. These are the sorts of things the designers play with."
Netflix and all the others have "designers" too. NONE of them have opted for totally obscuring and blurring backgrounds in favor of text, which, IMHO, is a questionable decision at best.
"Maybe you dim the backdrop, maybe you blur it, maybe you stroke the text, maybe you put the text on a sort of "sheet" with some opacity that effectively dims that part of the backdrop. And maybe you do a little bit of more than one of those things. These are the sorts of things the designers play with."
Netflix and all the others have "designers" too. NONE of them have opted for totally obscuring and blurring backgrounds in favor of text, which, IMHO, is a questionable decision at best.
they also never asked users what they would prefer nor have they given the users any options to change the layout. It's just a case of you're happy with what they have chosen as their design. But as some users are unhappy with the route Plex has gone down they keep comparing Plex to these other platforms. Why do you all persist in comparing? The Plex devs have already explained it was a conscious decision and that they are well aware they could change it but again have chosen not to. Permanently using Netflix, amazon etc as a comparison that it doesn't need to be blurred is completely pointless, Plex devs are well aware of this fact.
Sorry Schuyler… Bottom line is I and many here are paying customers. You could say to bad we are not changing it, when it was free. But you are going down the road of premium and pay. So maybe it is a premium offering only. But to go against what your customers want and make a design decision only to say bottom line is we did it and no intention of going back is very bad customer service. If this was Netflix or the like they would immediately. Further more you have yet to divilulge who and why this was made. not one other streaming system does this and it looks amazing on the web interface. Overall Plex is great and does a good job and I like it. I think we are patient when you guys try to fix issues or add features But…
Bottom line…Your customers are speaking you really should start to listen. The fact this spans multiple massive threads should give you a clue in what to do. It is never really your product… It is owned by the customers that pay for it.
After all the hyperbole of "disaster" and "ruin," I notice that, between the two threads (including this one) where this issue is being discussed, there are fewer than 40 votes ("Likes" on the first messages in the threads).
After all the hyperbole of "disaster" and "ruin," I notice that, between the two threads (including this one) where this issue is being discussed, there are fewer than 40 votes ("Likes" on the first messages in the threads).
A lack of expertise in sampling may be showing. 40 votes may be a HUGE number. But unless you also include some baseline (like, for example, how many total people voted, how many total people care, how does this compare to other issues "voted on" in the past? How many total Plex Pass users are there, how many use Roku, how many have installed the Preview Channel and are actively using it and commenting on it. Again, 40 votes may be a HUGE number.
Saying that "there are fewer than 40 votes" and inferring that this means -anything- is not at all a sound analysis.
For comparison to other feature requests:
Microsoft OneDrive Cloud Sync Support - 488 votes
Fix the gaping security holes - 388 Votes
remember position for audiobooks - 287 Votes
PLEXREADER: Comics, Books, PDFs, Audiobooks and More - 235 Votes
And those are just the ones I found on the first page.
A lack of expertise in sampling may be showing. 40 votes may be a HUGE number. But unless you also include some baseline (like, for example, how many total people voted, how many total people care, how does this compare to other issues "voted on" in the past? How many total Plex Pass users are there, how many use Roku, how many have installed the Preview Channel and are actively using it and commenting on it. Again, 40 votes may be a HUGE number.
Saying that "there are fewer than 40 votes" and inferring that this means -anything- is not at all a sound analysis.
Mostly I was suggesting that everyone who has been talking about it should vote. Seemed like there should have been more.
But your reply does remind me of a line from "Good Morning, Vietnam," when Lt. Hauk can't accept being told that he isn't popular on the radio: "Sir, you heard from the men who don't like my humor, but what about the silent masses who do?" :)
I'm going to shut up on all threads about this topic after this post:
I am TOTALLY mystified by the reaction and the arguments by the "ninjas" and "dedicated users" and Plex people and I don't know who is who, except Schuyler, to the blurred background issue. I'd bet a steak dinner that if you showed 100 random Plex users the PHT and Android backgrounds, and then the Roku Preview backgrounds, you'd get 100%--ONE HUNDRED PERCENT agreement that the blurred, unrecognizable Roku Preview background just makes no sense at all. I have been involved in SW development for 40 years and I have NEVER seen such an obvious choice. Even though there is CONSIDERABLE agreement with me, there is gob-smacking argument that the current rendering is "fine," "trivial," " an absurd issue" and more. I just don't get it.
As sure as I'm sitting here, I feel certain that -way- more than 50% of Roku Plex users would say, "WTF, this is awful, why download metadata at all and then blurr it out of existence" a substantial minority would say, "I don't care," and only a tiny number would say they actually like it. Why in the world would you do something only a few people actually like?
I'm gone from the Blurred Background Topic. Do as you will.
I'm going to shut up on all threads about this topic after this post:
I am TOTALLY mystified by the reaction and the arguments by the "ninjas" and "dedicated users" and Plex people and I don't know who is who, except Schuyler, to the blurred background issue. I'd bet a steak dinner that if you showed 100 random Plex users the PHT and Android backgrounds, and then the Roku Preview backgrounds, you'd get 100%--ONE HUNDRED PERCENT agreement that the blurred, unrecognizable Roku Preview background just makes no sense at all. I have been involved in SW development for 40 years and I have NEVER seen such an obvious choice. Even though there is CONSIDERABLE agreement with me, there is gob-smacking argument that the current rendering is "fine," "trivial," " an absurd issue" and more. I just don't get it.
As sure as I'm sitting here, I feel certain that -way- more than 50% of Roku Plex users would say, "WTF, this is awful, why download metadata at all and then blurr it out of existence" a substantial minority would say, "I don't care," and only a tiny number would say they actually like it. Why in the world would you do something only a few people actually like?
I'm gone from the Blurred Background Topic. Do as you will.
I'm glad you're finally willing to let it drop, but I'm going to pose the same questions I asked on one of the other threads. Respond or not, it's up to you, but I hope you'll at least consider them:
Exactly what does the blurry background prevent you from doing? Can you not play the movie because of it? Can you not see the foreground text because of it? Is it crashing your device? Is some function of Plex inaccessible because of it? If not, if the only problem you have with it is that you don't like the looks of it, then the issue is purely cosmetic. In the terms of some software issue tracking systems, that is the definition of "trivial."
What was called "absurd" wasn't the issue - it was the notion that an unpopular feature, no matter how widely disliked, that doesn't interfere with the operation of the product, should be considered a showstopper, as you demanded. No software developer that I've ever worked with (and I have 20+ years in the industry myself) would hold up a release over something cosmetic.
They made a design decision, and not a radical or unique one. They had no way of knowing how many people would dislike it. They explained why they made that decision. They have said repeatedly that they are paying attention to feedback. Just because they haven't said they will change it doesn't mean they won't. The product is still in a preview state.
Mostly I was suggesting that everyone who has been talking about it should vote. Seemed like there should have been more.
But your reply does remind me of a line from "Good Morning, Vietnam," when Lt. Hauk can't accept being told that he isn't popular on the radio: "Sir, you heard from the men who don't like my humor, but what about the silent masses who do?" :)
Apparently, if I understand the release notes for the latest Plex Media Server, and some questions regarding the new ability to add season artwork for TV shows, we now have even more ways to select our background images. The options to select which images to blur just keep getting better!
Still hoping that we will get an option somehow to choose the way our background artwork is displayed to please everyone - those that like the blur, those that don't care, and those that want their carefully selected artwork more recognizable.
