Dnia 2009-07-02, czw o godzinie 04:26 +0200, [email protected] pisze: --8<--
> Lets just say everythign you describe below... is exactly the scenario > I have seen PVR software mess up. > One of two things happen... to much user 'feedback' and choices... too > little and doesn't work or acts 'strange'. Well let's do it properly :) > > It could be the same when you try to start watching LiveTV when all > > tuners are busy. If one of the recordings is on later free this > tuner up > > and reschedule the recording. Otherwise ask the user what to do. > > > > This is exactly the scenario I was describing where I said... Sky+ > made a hard choice. > Always had a tuner available (out of 2) dedicated to LiveTV only, so > this question was never asked or problem had to be solved. > > For us though... I have no problem with it as long as asking the user > can be made concise. In the message of what to do, and the options. You know, I think there's one big difference when it comes to that. When you have a STB every potential user has one - and has two tuners. The idea of consolidating that is to maximize the use of tuners / minimize the danger of missed recordings. Imagine a multi-user setup, with STBs you have Tuners == 2*Users, I think when done right, especially with DVB where multiple channels can be recorded from one tuner, we should successfully do with Tuners == 1*Users. Maybe a +1 for good measure. Of course it depends on the usage - in the afternoons / evenings more tuners would be used, while in the night and mornings - they'd be idle or at a mad recording streak. I have one tuner set up for multiple recordings (like 10 a day) and I still manage to have some stupid LiveTV on without being constantly asked what to do, it happens from time to time, and actually it sometimes gets annoying - but smart rescheduling on-the-fly should reduce that to a minimum. Rarely now there are shows on which are not repeated next day or so. > > When there are multiple recordings running and several can be > > rescheduled the scheduler should pick one with the biggest > possibility > > of uninterrupted recording later. > > Prefer this, figure it out for the user... > "Sorry...cant record this right now... but I can record it Tuesday at > 5pm...that ok?" Yes/No I can't imagine when such a question would be asked... I rather think of a question like: "Sorry, all the tuners are busy, do you want to interrupt one on the recordings to watch TV?" > > This, of course, starts to become > > quite a math to tackle for the scheduler, but that's what you get > when > > you want to simplify it for the user - you need to make it harder > for > > the software. > > > > Yeah... intelligent though. Moovida just shuts up and gets on with it > and doesn't bother you unless it has to. Yeah I like that, too. > > An additional level of complication for the user would be to provide > the > > user with a list of recordings available to stop. > > Ah, yeah... this isn't a bad idea for a power user I guess. We can do > popups with multiple button choices. (up to 4). 4 may not be enough, but I'm not really sure that's even needed. Properly setting priorities would ensure that the important show gets recorded no matter what (unless you really mess things up) and some things you have set as ~ 'record if possible, I don't really care' would be dropped easily. Man, do you sleep? Like... ever? -- Michał Sawicz <[email protected]>
