
Firefox OS for TV: UX Overview - Fudgel
https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2015/04/firefox-os-for-tv-ux-overview/
======
jonathansizz
While it wasn't difficult to understand what the author was trying to say, I
found this post jarring to read.

Surely Mozilla have native English speakers who can at least edit their blog
posts? Anything that goes out to the public affects Mozilla's reputation, and
should therefore be taken seriously.

~~~
callahad
> _Surely Mozilla have native English speakers who can at least edit their
> blog posts?_

Certainly, but we also try to let teams and individuals operate fairly
autonomously, and I believe our open, honest humanity is one of our greatest
strengths as both a global community and as a company.

Let's put this in context, though: This isn't a press release, nor is
[https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/](https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/) a press channel.
Rather, it's someone openly sharing the UX team's ongoing work on their team
blog, much the same as you'll find at
[https://blog.mozilla.org/creative/](https://blog.mozilla.org/creative/) or
[https://blog.mozilla.org/services/](https://blog.mozilla.org/services/).
Could Shiqi's posts have used a pass by a native English speaker? Certainly.
But I'm happy to be part of an organization that shares openly at the
occasional cost of mistranslations.

Plus, I'm sure the UX team will learn from this and adjust their review
process accordingly. :)

~~~
hackuser
I think you make some excellent points, but I'd like to share some perspective
from the outside (and from someone who strongly supports Mozilla and its
mission):

> Let's put this in context, though: This isn't a press release, nor is
> [https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/](https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/) a press
> channel.

That distinction may be well known internally, but nobody else knows or cares
to learn about it; we're going to base our judgement on impressions: The page
says "Mozilla UX" in big letters at top and it's on the mozilla.org domain; to
me and I suspect to almost everyone else outside Mozilla, it's official
Mozilla communication.

------
martingordon
I hope someone can save us from the "grid of icons" UI that pervades set-top
boxes. The grid works fine for handheld/desktop applications where access is
non-sequential, but when we're using just directional arrows, that's a lot of
tedious button pressing.

Traditional TV service has the advantage of shortcuts by way of being able to
jump to a channel directly using the number pad, but the top set-top boxes
don't have that affordance because they generally lack number pads.

~~~
kaolinite
I feel that the grid of icons works great for the TV but the problem is the
unimaginative remote control. Instead of a plastic remote with arrow buttons,
a better solution is using a phone or tablet which shows a UI based on what is
on the screen. You tap through apps on the phone and pick what you want to
watch. Then, you hit play and it starts showing on the screen.

TVs aren't really great for interacting with - so a better approach is not to
interact with them at all and do the interaction on a different, closer touch
device.

~~~
paganel
> a better solution is using a phone or tablet which shows a UI based on what
> is on the screen. You tap through apps on the phone and pick what you want
> to watch. Then, you hit play and it starts showing on the screen.

This might be the former TV-addict in me speaking, but would you be able to
change channels and adjust the volume without taking your eyes off the TV
screen? Because remote controls in their present form are just perfect for
that, and have been since at least 20-30 years. In other words, don't get rid
of physical buttons unless you really, really need to.

~~~
aroch
You should be able to, at least volume and channel up/down; i.e. normal press
of the volume keys when connected to the TV changes volume, long press changes
channel. Much like how mediakeys are already implemented. Indeed, some remote
apps for IRBlaster equipped Android devices support this.

That being said, I'd prefer my TV controls to be at least mostly
tactile/physical. At least for the TV operations. I'd be thrilled if instead
of menu arrow button hell I could just set things from my smartphone.

------
Brakenshire
My flat screen TV seems to pick up about a second of latency every three
months, it now takes about 12 seconds to load up the programme guide. I'd
really like if it had proper OS that could be updated, reinstalled, and
extended, rather than something cobbled together and frozen in time. Smart TVs
are basically computers so they might as well have decent operating systems.

~~~
kaolinite
I bought my TV just before smart TVs became popular and am dreading having to
replace it, with - from what I can tell - all of the good, high end TVs now
being "smart".

I really wish the trend was TVs becoming less smart, more like a monitor than
a computer, especially now that TV "pucks" like Apple TV, Roku, etc are
gaining popularity.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> I really wish the trend was TVs becoming less smart

How so? Ever since I switched to a Smart TV I pretty much removed all other
boxes that were standing around. My Samsung solves all the problems I had
separate boxes for before. The only thing that is still connected is a PS4.

~~~
DanBC
Witha smart tv I have to fight that tech, and all the other tech, to get it to
do the reasonably simple task of "display the image".

Let me chose the smart box I want, and be the best dumb display for that box
you can be, rather than giving me a bunch of poorly engineered over-expensive
cruft that I neither want nor need.

~~~
efdee
Don't you just want to buy a monitor instead of a TV then?

~~~
CWuestefeld
Yes, exactly. But that's not the way the market works these days. I want a TV-
quality display (which means large, but otherwise having lower specs than the
monitor on my desk), with no tuner, no speakers, just a remote control
receiver and a few HDMI ports.

For some reason they keep adding stuff that I don't want to the device. And
"smartness" is the worst of it. I plan to keep the display far longer than the
Roku box (or whatever).

Consider: is your TV going to be able to play H.265 content when it become
available? Chances are your manufacturer won't even upgrade your software -
they've got a dismal record for this. But even if they do, you probably don't
have the CPU power to handle it. To avoid replacing the display, you'll wind
up buying a Roku or Chromecast, and (as was said up-thread) fighting the TV's
UI to get to your new box.

~~~
soylentcola
What usually ends up happening (at least since the last time I bought a TV) is
that I can't find anything simpler for the same price since a big part of the
(relatively) lower cost of modern high-def televisions comes from volume in
manufacturing and sales. Since most come with some token "smart" capabilities,
I end up buying something regardless of (or despite) the addons.

I just use a basic home-theater-in-a-box receiver for 5.1 sound and because it
has a built-in Bluray player (which I have yet to use) and like 3 or 4 HDMI
inputs. So I run the cable box into one input, Chromecast into another, game
console or HTPC into another, etc. and then output video from that into the
TV.

So in the end, I only use my TV as a display even though it has other features
built in. Having all sources go into the receiver means I can just switch
inputs and audio follows video. If I want to watch Youtube or Netflix or
listen to streaming music or watch something on my NAS via Plex, I use the
Chromecast. If want cable TV for some weird reason, I switch to the cable box,
etc.

But yeah, a large format display should last me longer than the life cycle of
the "smart" capabilities or streaming services. When I bought this TV, there
were several streaming sites that didn't exist yet or I didn't use. I want to
be able to add or remove hardware as I need it and I want to use services that
are currently valuable to me (and not have to skim past all of the integrated
ones I never use or don't exist anymore).

Right now the two options I see are to use a low-powered HTPC that is still
more functional than anything in a smart TV and can be upgraded, or something
small and cheap like a Chromecast or extender that lets me tap into sources on
my network or on the WAN.

------
jbk
First, I fail to see the difference with the UX of the other smart TVs.

But mostly, as it is still Firefox OS, I don't see how people will be able to
do cool multimedia applications, without access to native code and threads.
Implementing DLNA, SMB, AFP shares, listening to network devices, hardware
decoding, perfect audio/video synchronization requires threads and probably
native code.

Limiting to HTML5 videos is going to be a very light. Or they will re-
implement all the media center and multimedia code themselves, supporting all
codecs and formats (and subtitles)?

I could somehow understand the limitation on the phone, but on a TV,
multimedia playback is the massive use case.

~~~
mikeryan
_Limiting to HTML5 videos is going to be a very light. Or they will re-
implement all the media center and multimedia code themselves, supporting all
codecs and formats (and subtitles)?_

Generally on Smart TV's the video decoding isn't handled by the
browser/render, instead handled by the underlying media player and hardware
decoder. Pretty much all the TVs (Samsung, LG etc) use HTML5 video with much
wider support for codecs then you see in browsers. HLS/H.264 is commonly
supported.

Similarly they tend to use mechanisms such as custom plugins and JavaScript
interfaces for DLNA/SMB etc. Not sure why you need threads in particular,
there's already a lot of JavaScript mechanisms (events, async calls) to
support these types of features.

~~~
jbk
All the TVs are moving to native SDKs, in order to have good games and good
multimedia apps. This is true of Samsung, Sony and LG. Games on Firefox OS are
a joke.

If you want extra codecs, media players or media center, you need to write
them in native.

------
listic
I wonder if Mozilla is in communication with Matchstick.tv developers?
[http://www.matchstick.tv/](http://www.matchstick.tv/)
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/matchstick/matchstick-t...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/matchstick/matchstick-
the-streaming-stick-built-on-firefox-os)

Matchstick developers have gathered quite a lot of support for their
croudfunding campaign, by promising an open software and hardware TV streaming
stick due this February, and for a low price ($16+). Then, come February, they
pissed off the vast majority of their supporters by suddenly announcing the
6-month delay in favor of things like hardware upgrade and DRM support, which
none of their backers actually asked for. If it turns out that they were not
in communication with Mozilla and their vision for Firefox OS TV's is
incoherent with Mozilla's, then this project will truly end up a poor
application of users' money and trust, bordering on a scam. Actually, a lot of
supporters have lost faith in crowdfunding, and, presumably, Firefox OS, as it
is; demanding their money back - not that Kickstarter supports it, after the
project's been funded.

~~~
jdboyd
Their backers may not have asked for DRM support, but they did ask for
supporting services that require DRM, such as Netflix.

I participated in the kickstarter. What I am interested in is less a physical
product and more an open platform, but I suspect we won't actually be getting
that.

~~~
Caspy7
The DRM is being implemented via EME which is a sandboxed* plugin that's
invoked by the app. If you don't use it you don't get it. There is no
monitoring or reaching into other parts of the app or OS. Firefox (the desktop
browser) allows you to disable the EME (which also deletes the plugin). This
would be expected behavior on Firefox OS as well.

You seemed to indicate that the DRM addition would make it not an open
platform so though I'd share that as it still seems like a potentially
positive situation.

*at least in Firefox

------
mkesper
Please do not include several images > 1MB in your posts. Ever thought of
mobile users?

~~~
DanBC
It's kind of surprising to see people at Mozilla make this mistake. They're
targeting low end systems and so you'd think they are expert in image
optimizing systems for all those people on limited 2g and 3g Internet.

------
linuxlefty
The link is now returning a "Not Found" error. Google cache link for those
interested:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fblog.mozilla.org%2Fux%2F2015%2F04%2Ffirefox-
os-for-tv-ux-overview%2F)

~~~
yohui
I archived the page:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20150504173515/https://blog.mozi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150504173515/https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2015/04/firefox-
os-for-tv-ux-overview/)

------
lighthawk
It looks good, and don't want to shoot down the UI, but here are some
suggestions:

In regard to pictures 4 and 5, Roku tried the fully horizontal menu for a
while, but wasn't great. It's too limiting. Think about using a vertical left
and a grid right like they do. It fits more and given the right control, works
pretty well to navigate, even if it isn't the prettiest.

And, if you only do one thing, remember the rule of simplification and reduce
the number of visual elements required to convey the same information.
Examples...

In picture 6, you shouldn't need icons strawn about the window left, right,
and bottom. All kinds of space wasted for no apparent reason.

In picture 7, just say no to the advertisement looking things in the top bar
and the useless title and description at top. If you must get their attention,
make them go through a screen to have full attention on your singular
announcement. Don't make noise.

In picture 8, having the blue under each black and white icon is a little
distracting, and the text and icons have features too small to read or
recognize easily.

~~~
mikeryan
_Think about using a vertical left and a grid right like they do. It fits more
and given the right control, works pretty well to navigate, even if it isn 't
the prettiest._

While grids are nice they have a problem. They're great at navigating two
dimensions but they aren't easy to get out of. Where do you put the settings
and search buttons? Do I have to scroll through all the categories (like
netflix does) to get to search?

Similarly how do you do subcategories?

This system actually solves both of those problems. What it lacks is
information density. Something like this linking _into_ a grid could work.

Note I say this while our company that does this developed an app with this
exact navigation scheme for Comcast cable boxes.

[http://adifferentengine.com/cases/sochi/](http://adifferentengine.com/cases/sochi/)

But we had a very strict set of content so we knew it would work for our use
case.

~~~
lighthawk
> Where do you put the settings and search buttons?

My opinion:

1\. They go on the remote controller itself as magnifying glass and gear
buttons, if you have that luxury. If there is no UI pointer, there is no need
to provide anything else.

2\. If you have a UI pointer, icons (gear, magnifying glass) or word links
(settings, search), upper-right is most intuitive but lower-right may work
also.

------
yellowapple
What's the feasibility of getting this variety of Firefox OS / B2G running
directly on real hardware either now or in the near future? Ubuntu for TVs
ended up being miscarried because Canonical didn't provide anything
prospective hardware developers could _easily_ download, build, and deploy to
prototype hardware (and end users / software developers couldn't do the same
with COTS hardware), and it would be a shame if the same happened to this for
the same exact reasons. It looks like there's already the ability to run it in
an emulator (with some custom make flags for Gaia), which is a start, but the
ability to, say, pack this into an ISO or USB image and boot it on an ordinary
HTPC would make for a really compelling home media platform and probably drive
implementation rather significantly (rather unlike what happened to the TV
variant of Ubuntu).

------
justaman
First person to use a Duck Hunt zapper to control the UI wins a cookie.

Its an annoyance to repeatedly use arrow keys on remotes.

~~~
anonbanker
NES controller input has been part of the Linux kernel since at least 2000
(thanks to Vojtech Pavlik of SuSE), so most of the heavy lifting is already
completed. Input was originally added (according to the mailing list) to
support the NES Power Glove as a mouse input.

------
striking
The UI is (almost) just like any other on a Smart TV. Okay. Strikes me as
somewhat unimaginative.

Also, the Dashboard is a separate app. Like, um, in a car, right? Just like
the radio and temperature controls are away from the user, so they have to
look away from the road (their focus) to access it, right? Right.

What this UX actually needs, instead of being an app menu that can access TV
or whatever, is TV-centric design. It needs a focus. Provide a viewport that
apps can draw to, and allow switching of apps without having to "look away"
from the content.

Folder tabs? Search? (Please don't add a) favorites menu? They're all
acceptable ways to provide apps to users, but this is none of them.

You must be forgetting that most people use TVs for the video content. I'm not
saying "oh, get rid of YouTube and Netflix," I'm saying "constrain yourself to
video output because no one really cares about the web on a TV box." Yeah,
cool, you can go to webpages that have totally broken design and are totally
illegible on TV (hi, HN!). I mean, an RSS reader makes sense, because then the
TV (and thus, the user) has control of how the content's displayed. But "FF on
TV" sounds like a really bad idea to me, because the Web sucks on anything
that isn't a computer.

> The usage of applications on smart TV is getting huge, and it needs an re-
> framing of the UI structure to make the application as important as TV
> channels, and as input sources.

No, it isn't. No, it doesn't. Unless you mean you're going to make my Netflix
another channel just like Fox News, which would be pretty nice. But that
differs in the fact that Netflix is a video focused application that acts a
lot like a channel or something. But that means you had better add a unified
UI for video playback. Netflix and YouTube and everything should share the
same UI widgets.

A dashboard that can be activated on command is cute and can possibly be a
good idea. Like, maybe show it for a moment during that period where the TV is
adjusting to a new signal or something to allow the user to peek at it by
default so they can see alerts ("hey, Hillary Clinton's running for Pres! I
need to pull up the CNN Channel!"), and then allow them to later press a
button to show a dashboard that doesn't force them out of their content. But
if you push them out of the content, the illusion is broken. It's no longer a
TV, it's a computer. A big, complicated computer, with lots of little nodes in
its huge and complex menu. And only us nerds want that, because us nerds like
intricate and complex things. (there's nothing wrong with catering to nerds,
but I don't think that this is supposed to be directed towards them, because
they could just as easily grab a Raspberry Pi and load up XBMC on it without
having to invent their own new flavor of Linux)

PS: adding a focus means your UI will be necessarily shallow. It will force
you to get creative when you want to get complex in writing a good UI.
Snapchat, for example, has a focus on the camera. Swipe from the left, you get
your incoming Snaps. Swipe from the right, you get your Stories. Swipe from
the top to see stuff about you and your settings. And that's the extent to
which anyone uses Snapchat.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I agree that this is disappointingly unimaginative.

 _Unless you mean you 're going to make my Netflix another channel just like
Fox News, which would be pretty nice. But that differs in the fact that
Netflix is a video focused application that acts a lot like a channel or
something. But that means you had better add a unified UI for video playback.
Netflix and YouTube and everything should share the same UI widgets._

I think that's a big part of it. The distinct between "channels" and "apps" is
artificial. On my Roku, most of the "channels" can be interacted with in at
least some way, making it difficult to draw a line.

Most channels on Roku are offering on-demand features, and you interact with
the channel to locate a feature. The Weather Underground channel has controls
allowing search for locations, and viewing maps and radar. Some really big
things, like Tablo, include features for programming recording; and Plex is
pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.

I think if they saw that the apps/channels distinction is artificial, the rest
of the design would collapse into a bunch of irrelevancies, and they'd be
forced to confront the question for real.

