JP1 Remotes Forum Index JP1 Remotes


FAQFAQ SearchSearch 7 days of topics7 Days MemberlistMemberlist UsergroupsUsergroups RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

IR8.01 Beta posted
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    JP1 Remotes Forum Index -> JP1 - Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mdavej
Expert


Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 3959

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree with dumping the bound and binding terminology. It is a little confusing, but it's already used extensively in the RDF spec and in extenders. I don't think we want to break that link. I'm also partial to keeping from/to since it's pretty deeply embedded in other documents an manuals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Robman
Site Owner


Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Posts: 18872
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Capn Trips wrote:
I gotta say that "Bound" has always left me scratching my head, and I for one would be happy to see that term done away with.

Add me to the list of people that would not miss the "bound" term.
_________________
Rob
www.hifi-remote.com
Please don't PM me with remote questions, post them in the forums so all the experts can help!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mathdon
Expert


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdavej wrote:
I disagree with dumping the bound and binding terminology. It is a little confusing, but it's already used extensively in the RDF spec and in extenders.

Yes, but these specs are read by those thoroughly into JP1, not by new users. "Bound" and "binding" in this sense is computerese, not English. I started this discussion after writing an explanation, in another thread, for a relatively new user of how to use Key Moves to change which keys perform particular functions. With my explanation he was easily able to get his remote exactly how he wanted it to be. Without it, Key Moves were a mystery that he had not felt like investigating. Clearly this tab is not intuitive to the uninitiated. If possible, I would like to make it more so.
_________________
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3FG
Expert


Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 3246

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mathdon wrote:
"Bound" and "binding" in this sense is computerese, not English.


"Bound" in this context isn't even good computerese. Unless extraordinary measures are taken, every key on a remote is bound, and bound all of the time. So the heading "Bound Key" conveys no useful information at all.

It's too wordy (but not in a tool tip!), however "Key to Redefine" appeals to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathdon
Expert


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IR 8.01 Beta 3 posted

I have now posted IR 8.01 Beta 3. This differs from the preliminary version that was posted for Rob to check that I had resolved a problem of his, but the changes are only to various headings, following on from the recent discussions in this thread. On the whole I have followed the Capn's suggestions but I have used "Function Source" rather than "Source Device" for the second Dev Btn column of Key Moves, as it is closest to the heading "Function to perform" used in the dialog box.

On the Macros tab I have also used the Capn's "Command Sequence" to replace "Macro Keys". The manual for my remote says "Macro (Sequence of commands)" so that seems to fit with UEI terminology.

The term "Bound" no longer appears in either column headings or dialog boxes. There seems to be majority support for this.

Please speak up if I've done anything unacceptable.
__________________
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdavej
Expert


Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 3959

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the update, Graham.

Looks good overall. I still don't like the inconsistency between the summary and some of the pop-ups. For example, on the macro tab, command sequence makes perfect sense, but I see no such thing on the pop-up. It's still macro keys there. How about something simple like "Steps" in both places?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathdon
Expert


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdavej wrote:
I still don't like the inconsistency between the summary and some of the pop-ups. For example, on the macro tab, command sequence makes perfect sense, but I see no such thing on the pop-up. It's still macro keys there. How about something simple like "Steps" in both places?

Yes, I wondered about the Macro dialog box. Perhaps "Available Commands" and "Macro Commands" would be better there, too, I didn't do it because I saw three uses of the word "Key" on the Special Protocols dialog and thought they would all need changing, but in fact it is only the first one: Short Keys and Long Keys refer to the length of the keypress, a quite separate use of the word.

I don't like "Steps". If it is to be changed, I would stick to "Commands". What do others think?
_______________
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Capn Trips
Expert


Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 3953

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I prefer "Command" to "Key" in all instances of building macros, DSMs and LKP/DKPs, since there are a LOT of commands that are certainly not "keys" and even hard to call the more generic "functions".

So for Macros, I'd prefer "Available Commands" in lieu of "Available Keys" and "Command Sequence" in lieu of "Macro Keys"
Similarly for DSM and LKP/DKP, in which you would have the "Short Command Sequence" and the "Long Command Sequence"

Additionally, I would do the same in the Toad Tog pop-up, with each window referring to a "Command Sequence"

It may be too much to code, but maybe doable?
_________________
Beginners - Read this thread first
READ BEFORE POSTING or your post will be DELETED!


Remotes:Atlas OCAP URC 1056, Harmony One, OFA XSight Touch, AR XSight Touch
TVs: Panasonic TH-50PE700U; LG 65" Smart LED TV; RCVR: Pioneer VSX-D2016S;Onkyo TX-SR875
DVD/VCR: LG Blu-Ray player, Pioneer DV-400VK (multi-region DVD), Sony BDP-S350 (Blu-ray), Toshiba HD-A1 (HD-DVD), Panasonic AG-W1 (Multi-system VCR);
Laserdisc/CD changer: Pioneer CLD-704.
Streaming: Intel NUC PC
(But I still have to get up for my beer)


Last edited by Capn Trips on Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mathdon
Expert


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you, Capn. There were certain cases where "Key" meant Keypress rather than Command, eg Short Keys and Long Keys as headings in LKP dialog. I've had another go, changing more of the headings in dialog boxes to try to be as consistent as possible this time round, eg those two have become "Short Key Commands" and "Long Key Commands". Lack of space prevents even better descriptions such as Short Keypress Command Sequence.

In the hope that we are nearly there with IR 8.01, I've called the next revision a Release Candidate. I'll post it within the next hour. I would be pleased if mdavej and the Capn (and anyone else with a view) would look at it and post their views, whether they be favourable or unfavourable.
__________________
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdavej
Expert


Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 3959

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know. I'm partial to "Key" or button or something similar. Command or function implies it does what the key name says, which may not be the case. It's function depends on what's assigned in RM, which you can't even see in IR. After all, they all have key addresses. Even though phantom, shift, xshift and extender keys are way up in the address space, they're still treated by the remote as keys.

I'm for taking a conservative approach and would like to see a whole lot more discussion on this before lots of stuff in IR that's worked fine for years gets renamed. I think clarifying a few things that don't make sense (like "bound") is fine. But the other terminology is pretty good the way it is IMO, so long as it's consistent on all the tabs and pop-ups.

EDIT: Looks like we were typing at the same time, Graham. I took a quick look through the current beta, and we call keys "buttons" on the device list, "keys" on the macro pop-up, "command sequence" on the macro tab, and will call it "... key command" on special protocols in the next beta. I'd rather pick one simple term and stick with it. I don't like "command" because something like xshift-phantom6 has no meaning in the context of a command. It's just a key.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathdon
Expert


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IR 8.01 Release Candidate posted

I have now posted IR 8.01 Release Candidate. This has further changes to headings, to improve consistency over the changes made in Beta 3. There is also one minor bug fix concerning invalid setup codes.

I'm with the Capn on the use of Commands rather than Keys wherever that is the purpose of the key name. Extenders have a lot of things like X_DEV1 that have keycodes, but which cannot be called keys in any reasonable sense of the word. I don't want to over-ride things that have worked well for a long time, but I would like to improve the clarity where it can cause confusion to the uninitiated.

This is only a first Release Candidate. IR 8.00 went through five of them, and though I hope that won't happen to IR 8.01, nothing is set in stone. I think the best way of debating these name changes is by showing them in action, so that is why they are incorporated in this version.

I hope everyone with a view will post their opinions, both favourable and unfavourable, so that a true consensus can be formed.
_________________
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mathdon
Expert


Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 3177
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdavej wrote:
I took a quick look through the current beta, and we call keys "buttons" on the device list, "keys" on the macro pop-up, "command sequence" on the macro tab, and will call it "... key command" on special protocols in the next beta. I'd rather pick one simple term and stick with it. I don't like "command" because something like xshift-phantom6 has no meaning in the context of a command. It's just a key.

They aren't "keys" any longer on the macro popup, and "Key command" is a misunderstanding. It's a command for a short/long keypress, abbreviated for reasons of space to a short/long key. Whatever the list may be, it certainly is not a list of "short keys" or "long keys".

Do tell me where the xshift-phantom6 key is, please. It may not be meaningful as a command name, but it is a command name and it isn't a key unless you can tell me where to find it on my/your remote. It's really a cryptic name for a subroutine (i.e. command). There has been a request for me to make it possible to re-name such "key names" in IR. I haven't got round to that yet, but when (or if) I do, then macro command sequences will look a lot more like commands than keys.
_________________
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Pierson
Expert


Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3009
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mathdon wrote:
Do tell me where the xshift-phantom6 key is, please. It may not be meaningful as a command name, but it is a command name and it isn't a key unless you can tell me where to find it on my/your remote.
It may not be a physical key you can press on the keypad of the remote, but it IS a phantom key which is a concept that has been around forever in the JP1 world. IMHO, xshift-phantom6 is no different than power or shift-play for example.

On the other hand, every key (real or phantom) ends up being assigned a function, or command, or subroutine, or whatever you may want to call it. I think the problem comes (in the JP1 context) when we have the ability to assign complex commands to buttons on the remote.

It's all clear as mud to me! Surprised
_________________
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mdavej
Expert


Joined: 08 Oct 2003
Posts: 3959

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham,

I understand what you're saying. If it's not a physical button we shouldn't call it a key. That's perfectly reasonable. But when you put a phantom in a key move or macro, the remote thinks a physical key has been pressed. If the remote thinks it's a key (even if it's just a logical one), I think it's ok for us to call it a key. Everything you can put in a macro is the set of physical keys, shifted (physical) and xshifted (logical) versions of those, phantom keys and their shift/xshift versions, and extender functions. You've written extenders yourself and know that all of those are handled as key presses. In the RDF's, KM and RM, they're all keys. And we've already differentiated physical and logical keys by calling the logical ones phantom, and the extender functions X_ something.

I think we're trying to solve a perceived newbie confusion issue that really doesn't exist. We get a few questions now and then asking where the phantom keys are on the remote, but once they understand the phantom term, they're ok.

We have a fundamental difference on the the definition of key (physical button versus a named address in the button list in the RDF). So I think we're at an impasse.

All that being said, if you end up implementing something in IR to indicate the actual function of each key, as you said, then "command" or "function" is perfectly fine with me.

I must say, although I have the dissenting view on this one issue, I love all the work you're doing on IR. Please keep it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Pierson
Expert


Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3009
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdavej wrote:
We have a fundamental difference on the the definition of key (physical button versus a named address in the button list in the RDF).
I fully understand what Graham is trying to acheive by finding some consistency across the various tabs in IR, and even support it myself (though I prefer the term "button" to "key" Surprised ).

In the early JP1 days, all we had were "functions" and "buttons". Functions were defined and assigned to buttons. Macros were just a series of buttons strung together. As extenders and special protocols were developed, we added complex command sequences that were still in essence functions assigned to buttons. Everything we do today is still a function assigned to a button (either physical or logical) in its simplest form.

Even if this naming issue were put to rest, there's still the problem with all the existing documentation that's out there. We all know that it almost never gets updated to reflect the current state of the tools in use. That is where, IMHO, most of the newbie confusion comes from.

Call 'em whatever you want... if they're not referred to the same way across all the tools, help and how-to info, somebody's bound to be confused.


Quote:
I love all the work you're doing on IR. Please keep it up.
Agreed... having someone look after IR (and who is still enthusiastic about it) is great for the community! Cool
_________________
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic       JP1 Remotes Forum Index -> JP1 - Software All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 4 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Get Smart! the band's official homepage Rockabilly Central