Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tolga]

As I tag in the new tagging mode of 9.1, I often find myself to go back and forth between tagging and browsing. I often tag, toggle to browse mode, select something else, toggle back and tag again etc...

I love that there is a seperate browse mode. It is safe(r). I don't want a change in that.

A simple solution:
In tagging mode, if you click on tag icons, you change the tags, if you click on the field etries, you change the filters (like in browse mode). I guess, MC worked with this logic before there was a browsing / tagging mode distinction.

In Short:
1. Keep the browsing mode as it is.
2. Return to the earlier browsing logic, in tagging mode.

What do people think?

[nila]

I agree, otherwise do it as:

1. Browsing Mode
2. Tagging Mode
3. Smart Mode


Smart mode might be a bit tricky for beginners which is why I think maybe keep a pure tagging mode as well.

[Tolga]

A related comment:
It may be useful to show the tags of the selected files even in the browse mode, but not to let them change in that mode.

[Matt]

The combined tagging / browsing mode was cool, but was too confusing when we did usability tests.  An option probably makes it worse instead of better.

Next build will add the keyboard shortcut F4.  Does that get us any closer?

Thanks.

[nila]

If u add that shortcut PLEASE make sure that it's well explained (either in a tooltip or something) just so beginners are aware of it


The smart method was confusing but how about some 'advanced' options - it's about time they showed up, we've been dodging them for long enough.

Have it as an advanced option to turn on smart tagging mode

(and I dont mean registry hacking to do it)

[Ingo]

Matt,

any chance we could have a browse-only-mode?

my girlfriend constantly changes tags (fortunately she doesn't do that on _my_ collection as we don't live together, but this could change in a few months, and I'm already starting to get nervous about my tags.....)

browse only mode would
- disable drag&drop-tagging
- disable F2/slow double click
- make properties read-only
- (disable anything dangerious I didn't think of)
- have a button/hotkey/... to enable tagging (as we have it now)

(and no, I'm not talking about party mode ;-) )

Ingo

[Doof]

I have to say I really like the idea of clicking on the tag icon to actually change the tag, but clicking on the field name changes the filter. I was using this heavily last night to get some much needed tagging done, and I honestly felt like I was slowed down by having to keep toggling the tag mode off and on. But I also like the idea of seperate browsing\tagging modes. I just wish I could also browse while in tagging mode.

Also, I was constantly faced with a situation where I was changing a field to a value that I knew I had used before, but since it hadn't been used in the particular subset of files I was looking at, I had to pretty much manually make the change. I kind of wished that, in tagging mode, the available values were populated by all the values previously used in ANY of my files, not just those in this particular set. If that makes sense.

[Rands]

I must be missing something here.  I am completely unaware of a "browse" mode.

[Tolga]

I
Also, I was constantly faced with a situation where I was changing a field to a value that I knew I had used before, but since it hadn't been used in the particular subset of files I was looking at, I had to pretty much manually make the change. I kind of wished that, in tagging mode, the available values were populated by all the values previously used in ANY of my files, not just those in this particular set. If that makes sense.

I agree with this. It would also be nice to have first the filtered values (because they are the ones that may make more sense in that context, then the remainining values, possibly after clicking on something.

[Tolga]

The combined tagging / browsing mode was cool, but was too confusing when we did usability tests.  An option probably makes it worse instead of better.

Next build will add the keyboard shortcut F4.  Does that get us any closer?

Thanks.

Matt,

In many cases, when you tag, you need also to browse. Yes F4 could make it easier to toggle but does not solve the main issue. While tagging, I often find myself clicking on the fields to browse somewhere else that I want to tag, forgetting that I am not in the browse mode, because that is the behavior I "learned" for browsing.

The problem is, that a behavior (click on field entry) has a totally different result in two modes. I think, compared to previous mixed mode system, the whole thing is much safer in browse mode (GOOD),  but tagging got more dangerous than the previous mixed mode.

I think minimal solution is, to allow tagging only if you click exactly on the label icon and do nothing if you click on the field name; although I prefer mixed mode if tagging is selected.

[sraymond]

The combined tagging / browsing mode was cool, but was too confusing when we did usability tests.  An option probably makes it worse instead of better.

I wrote in another thread:

I still think [the current method] is an unintuitive way to toggle the "tagging" mode.  When selecting individual files, I think tagging mode should always be "on".  It's a hassle to have to keep toggling the quick tag button.

I'd vote for tagging always on by default with a button to go back to search.  I liked the initial releases that let me click on the <all> to go back to search.  But a "search" button (vice the current "tag" button) would be even better.

Bottom line:  effieiciency for heavy taggers is different for heavy searchers.  The best of both worlds is when you can get both efficiencies with the click of a button.

Scott-

I'd think the difference between a "tag" icon (even if empty) and a "search" icon greatly helps the user see what's happening.

APA uses the tags solely for searching - and it's still a step ahead of MC in the "AND" and "OR" search criteria.  But what I don't like about APA is that in order to see what tags are applied, you have to hover over the tag items (i.e. person, place, event) that are added to the thumbnail.  MC has APA beat in this department - but I think the OP's suggestion will make it even better.

Perhaps we all can give this topic some more thought...

Scott-

[Cmagic]

Hi,

I agree with some of the suggestions here.
Keep browsing and tagging separate modes but when in tagging mode (kind of expert mode) it would be nice to have the ability to browse the entire lib and check the already entered tags (keywords) as suggested by Doof.

Also I guess it would be nice if we could add some sort of hierarchy in tagging. Like people(family(max, alex,..)), friends(jim, matt)) etc... because otherwise it rapidly ends up with long lists of names that are difficult to navigate. APA allows such a limited hierarchy. PSPA & Imatch both allow unlimited hierarchy.
I tried mimicking this using playlists but I don't think it's the solution as playlists are not saved as an image property.

One way to do that would be to use a lisp like syntax inside tags :
for example if in tag people you write [family(Chris)] to specify that Chris is a tag in the family group of people.
likewise you could write [Friends(JRiver(Matt;Jim))] meaning that Jim & Matt are tags in the JRiver group of Friends.

Same thing for Places like [Europe(France(Grenoble);UK(Grimsby;London))] would show as the following hierarchy in the tag pane :
+Europe
-+France
---Grenoble
-+UK
---Grimsby
---London

what do you think ?

Bonne journée / Nice day a tuti

Christian

[Jaguu]

I support Cmagic's idea about tag hierarchies. Right now the only way to do this, is to have plenty of extra database  fields, which could be avoided this way.

For example I have fields for Continents, Country, City, Places. The problem is it does not work consistently. For France the Scheme Europe>France>Paris works, but for the US it's more complex such as North America>United States>California>Los Angeles.

A flexible, hierarchical tagging system would be more helpful in this case and would use up only one db field such as Places, the same for fields like People.

And even more flexible, you could enter just Paris and it would automatically expand to Europe>France>Paris.

[nila]

Grouping is definitely good

Right now I solve it for countries by:

Country as one field
then location as another.


For people though I dont want to be splitting this into seperate fields, I'd just like groups

[Doof]

I really like the sounds of this hierarchial tagging...

I'm just wondering if there's anyway of making it user-friendly, or if it's one of the big boys (and girls - it just doesn't rhyme as well) only toys.

Either way, it would be really nice. User friendly would just be a bonus.

[Cmagic]

About user friendliness of hierarchy, I think the best way would be to present it as a tree. In the same way it is done in most cataloging software (APA, PSPA, etc).
The tree view is quite natural especialy for family trees where big boys & girls quickly find their way around

But, that's right it is a problem. The lisp like syntax I suggested, althought not user-friendly, is a compact an efficient way to make a tree fit in a character String.

Folks, don't you think we should also send a pack of beers to Matt and Nickolay ? I think we are making them sweat !

C.

[Doof]

Sometimes I think they thrive on this stuff.

Other times, I think they probably break down in tears of frustration...

[nila]

I just pray they thrive off it.

I know I like programming and enjoy the challege of a really complex task, sometimes though it does get a bit too much and I just get fried - a good nights sleep usually solves that though ready to try solve it the next day

I hope they get over the frustrations as easily