[vdr] Re: Vox and EPG: A summary to the situation

[Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de>]

_cooper_ wrote:
> 
> ...
> > > The "simple" entries allways will have this format, which will (says Indek)
> > > not change till the big change next year:
> > And once they change it, will it become *better*??
> I pray and hope so, I'll do my very best to make them clear what they're doing
> now and how to do it right. The absolute curious part is that there are a very
> few absolute correct EPG entries from which nobody knows how they have been
> programmed because they couldn't have been programmed because the software is
> not capable of doing it (says SES, the Astra-Experts).

That's about the lamest excuse I've ever heard... I can't believe they're
incapable of getting THREE SIMPLE TEXT STRINGS IN THE RIGHT PLACES!!!!

> I think we should
> create a X-File, this must be Alien powered ;-)
> 
> > I really wonder what's so hard about doing this in a way that is really *useful*.
> > The user, IMHO, wants the title in the <title> field, the episode name (or whatever
> > short description is available) in the <subtitle> field (which, I believe, is not
> > well named, since it has nothing to do with "subtitles"), and whatever additional
> > information is available in the <extended description> field.
> >
> > > In the title field:
> > >   <title>
> > > In the subtitle field:
> > >   (<country>, <year> <length>') Von <name>, <name>, ..., <name>. Mit <name>,
> > >   <name>, ..., <name>. "<subtitle/series title>". <description>
> >
> > This is about as bad as it can be done - mixing several kinds of information
> > in one field. This field should *ONLY* contain the episode name (or equivalent
> > information).
> Their argument for the current format is: There are some (old? antique?
> pre-historic?) digital receivers with only one display line (they said
> something about a Galaxis model) and it would be nice for the users to have a
> description there and not only the title and subtitle.

But I guess that "one display line" also has a limited length, so stuffing everything
into that one line might exceed their display space, too.

> > As far as I understand it, the EIT nomenclature speaks of four text fields that
> > are of interest here:
> > - ShortName
> > - ShortText
> > - ExtendedName
> > - ExtendedText
> Do you have any "official" source, a paper describing this as "standard" or
> suggestion from any official organization? Are there some more fields you
> didn't mention? Perhaps I'll be in the position to advice them one format.

I assume the "official" source would be

  ETSI EN 300 468
  Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
  Specification for Service Information (SI) in DVB systems

However, I'm not sure if one can interpret this huge mass of text in a really
clear way. There's probably always room for interpretation, so in the end
everybody could do things the way they like - and still be able to interpret
the "standard" in a way fitting their purpose.

> My problem is: I tell them what they're doing is evil, and they answer that
> it's not violating any standard. So I have to put my finger on the line and
> show them they do wrong or at least are violating a suggestion of anyone to
> speak of. Sadly, "most users" is not enough to them, because their version
> could be read by everyone, the "correct" format would probably bring less
> information to those old users.

Just tell them to take a look at how others do it. There are quite a lot of
stations that broadcast their EPG data in a useful way, for instance

all Premiere World channels
Sat.1
Pro 7
ARD
BR3
Hessen-3
ZDF
3sat (mostly)
KiKa

to name just a few. So there *IS* a de facto standard many stations have agreed on
(maybe not explicitly, by signing any "contracts" or so, but rather by just doing
things the "right way"). Nobody at RTL/VOX can seriously claim that it "can't be done".

> The more, users of digital video recorders are the opposite of their target
> group, so our satisfaction doesn't count too much in their eyes.

Well, the EPG is not only used for recording. The better the EPG data is, the
more likely people are going to find the programme they are interested in.

...
> I hope I could make them clear that a full featured EPG is no disadvantage at
> all, the more, they could drag viewers to their channel by filling the
> ExtendedName or even ExtendedText. And that channels without EPG (as Vox for
> a couple of days or DSF) will not appear anywhere and so probably be ignored
> at all.

That's definitely a good point! If they want people to watch their channels,
they need to make their programming information easily accessible!

> My goal is to have an up to date, full featured EPG containing at least all
> informations that are available via teletext.

Fully ACK.

Klaus
-- 
_______________________________________________________________

Klaus Schmidinger                       Phone: +49-8635-6989-10
CadSoft Computer GmbH                   Fax:   +49-8635-6989-40
Hofmark 2                               Email:   kls@cadsoft.de
D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany           URL:     www.cadsoft.de
_______________________________________________________________


-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to listar@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe vdr" as subject.