[mythtv-users] ease of [clear qam] channel scanning

[Robert McNamara]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Brian J. Murrell <brian at interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 08:28 -0800, Robert McNamara wrote:
>>
>> Because your TV has to be concerned with one television standard.
>> Yours.  Myth has to be concerned with every television standard, some
>> of which overlap in various locales.
>
> Couldn't the channel scanner start with "where are you?" and give a list
> of locations for the various standards?  i.e. I am in Canada so surely I
> could just choose Canada and then scanning could be made as simple and
> intuitive as my TV, yes?

I think you're missing the point.  We're not unaware of where it could
be better, nor are we lacking ideas of how to make it better.  We lack
people to *do the work*.  I can't even get through my own projects at
a pace I find acceptable, let alone the hundreds or thousands of
usability improvements I could list with little effort.

>> This part could be better.  We've opted not to rewrite the Qt-style
>> scanner interface in favor of the complete mythtv-setup rewrite, thus
>> until that is done, this is what you get.  (for free, I hasten to add)
>
> Yeah, free.  I get it.  I'm just trying to relay my frustrations and
> confusion as an
> only-somewhat-technical-with-regard-to-broadcast-standards user.

I'm just trying to find a gentle way to indicate that while I
appreciate and even empathize with your frustration, we're all running
as fast and as hard as we can, and we are not lacking ideas.

>> Easier, maybe, as easy as your TV, no.
>
> Once you know where you are scanning in, why not?
>
>> I don't suppose this e-mail comes with any intention on your part to
>> actually work on scanner usability?
>
> I'm afraid not.  But does that mean that you are not interested in the
> experience of the common user, so as to make the software better?

We don't need e-mails like this to know how to make it better.

>> I hope that you don't think that
>> it just hasn't occurred to us that some part of myth, the scanner
>> included, are unintuitive or hard to use.
>
> No, but what I was considering was that like much FOSS written by people
> who are technically experts at the underlying technologies, the
> interfaces are written with the assumption that the users have the same
> technical depth, which they don't more times than not.
>
> I should add that there are also 3 choices in the frequency table for
> none/IRC/HRC, so together with the qam-64, qam-128 and qam-256 choices,
> I end up having 9 scans I have to do if I don't know beforehand which
> standards my cable operator is using in this area.

Sorry.  Patches welcome.

Robert