Topic: Treehuggers and panemongers... UNITE! (Read 6619 times)

Kambriel · « **on:** June 17, 2003, 02:38:07 pm »

Okay, how bout this. (It woud be a fair departure from both the old tree view and the new pane view.)

List files in tree. Have filter fields along the top. As each filter is applied, it changes the tree.

Have filter views fields that change the filters/adds filter boxes/switches back to previous filter etc.

So now we have treehuggers that have an unfiltered tree, and we have panemongers that can prune their tree.

Kambriel · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2003, 02:43:05 pm »

I'll leave it to the GUI people to make it pretty, but as a concept what does everyone think? People who need to filter down quite a way in the library can do it without wading through a tree (they'll have a very small tree, or even prune it to the bare trunk!)

NoCodeUK · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2003, 02:53:34 pm »

I think this is gonna be an all or nothing thing. I don't think there can be a compromise. It is either the tree or the panes from what Matt has said. That is why the panes were tested before their intro into a build. The tests were favourable. 95% of the people who tested them liked them. Unfortunately I think this was the time to test it and voice concerns over whether it was implemented. It has now been implemented. Too many people like it including the J River staff to suddenly go back to a tree. Sorry for being a panes evangelist once again but I think it looks like they are here to stay. Hopefully 9.0 will be updated for those who want to keep the tree once the grunt work has been done on 9.1.

Sorry to be a panemonger. Jam sorry if I am pissing you off. I read the same posts as you and this is how I percieve what has been said. If you can find evidence to the contrary prove me wrong and I will lie down and accept it. If not ...

Adam

Omni · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:02:31 pm »

That's a nice concept, Kambriel. Unless I'm just misreading your ASCII art, basically, the panes become a dynamic, "pre-populated" smartlist.

Three problems:

1.) I think it would be a nightmare for the developers to actually implement: too many unconstrainted dependencies;
2.) The screen would start to get way too busy way too fast; and
3.) I think I would move over to gkerber's camp and claim this is becoming a "power users" only tool.

But, hey! Being a power user wannabe, I don't really have a problem with that.

Omni

Kambriel · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:04:30 pm »

I don't know if they realized how much eleventh hour resistance there would be. When the glamour of panes goes away, it still leaves people wishing for the familar (which unfortunately is Windows Explorer style trees...)

For myself, I'm perfectly happy with just panes. I've been using them and they work fine for me. (They'll be better with some polish and a bit more snap, but that'll come.)

However, I do more with my library than others do, I'm somewhat a tech head and am familiar with a bunch of different styles of information presentation, and I can fit my head around new things pretty easily. I think I'm in a minority. (Not so much on this board though!!)

A very good point though is, that a LOT of people use Media Jukebox/Media Center that don't read this board, nor are they interested in providing input in developement. They just want to play music, maybe copy a CD for a friend, maybe play a .mpg file they got in their email. Panes will be very strange to them, and the help file is pretty much useless as it is now, IF they even bother/think to use them.

Kambriel · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:07:21 pm »

Omni: The view and filter section could expand and contract? Maybe with an option to be upper/lower or side/side with the tree? That way basic users wouldn't be bothered with it, but people who need it would have it there at the click of a mouse.

(I'm pretty rusty at ASCII art!

)

gkerber · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:16:22 pm »

Quote

3.) I think I would move over to gkerber's camp and claim this is becoming a "power users" only tool.

I never made that claim, I did say that this group has way more than it's fair share of power users (I'm not one), so maybe as a group, we are not the best indicator of what the general public would buy.

NoCodeUK · « **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:16:27 pm »

Kambriel,

Don't think I am knocking what you are suggesting in any way. I just don't think J River are going to go back now. And as for resistance they aren't actually getting hat much. On the whole the majority of users are happy with the new system. Yes it needs things ironing out but people accept that. The changes are radical and they will take time for people to accept (or not

) but this is inevitable

Omni,

I only became a "power user" by trying to push MC to its limit. I think anyone who uses MC is a power user to some degree. If they weren't theyd use WInamp or WMP 6.4. Give your self a bit of PU credit

MC is so powerful and is so much more than just a media player that it seems crazy to even try to only use it this way.

Adam

Big Up to all the MC "Power Users", both from the tree huggers and panemongers tribes. May your panes be forever populated and may your tree never wilt and die

Kambriel · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:22:03 pm »

Yeah... I looked closely at what I put in up there, and realized that the tree is pretty much redundant. It mirrors what the filters show anyway.

Okay, so no tree. How can we make the panes more intuitive? That would help basic AND advanced users! (I think it would be a more productive discussion anyway.)

(disclaimer: I'm not telling the designers how to do their job, I merely have way too much time on my hands and like being a facilitator.)

Edit: One thing I can think of, have the view default to Artist/Album when Media Library is selected; that way people won't be looking around wondering how to wade through all those songs?

NoCodeUK · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:26:01 pm »

I think if it was explained by both camps what they saw as the benifits and disadvantages of their particular "area" it will help all to see where we could go to reach a compromise. Personally I cannot see anything I could do in a tree that I cannot do in the panes...Things I see as disadvantages are that I cannot sort a column - it always appears alphabetically. When I refresh the bottom view or change its list style the panes reset. These are things I think will be sorted out - to those who I have annoyed accept this olive branch and let us start our negotiations

Adam

EDIT: Kam, the view DOES default to Artist/Album when you clik on Media Library

Omni · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:28:52 pm »

Actually, upon reexamination of your picture, you are not really introducing anything new other than allowing to see the creation filter and change the list view to a tree view.

But this goes back problem (1) listed above. How would the developers implement that? Sure, you picked an easy one: Artist/Album. What about all the other hundreds of combinations? On what basis would you decree something to be a parent, sibling, or child?

Maybe if they limited it, i.e., display all results in a Artist/Album view, but then you have the problem (read: clumsiness) of trying to select multiple tracks, not to mention the inherient limitation it would add. (Maybe not a limitation if they added a "View in Artist/Album tree scheme when possible" option or something.)

Egad, I am getting a headache just thinking about it!

Still, I think you have a goodidea brewing; it just needs a little polishing.

Omni

EDIT: Wow. Stop to write a post, and four more show up making this one obsolete before its time! Okay, forget everything I just wrote above.

Kambriel · « **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:30:43 pm »

Wow, that was quick! :p

I didn't notice that before. Guess I was too lazy to click on an album so the bottom pane would show more than EVERYTHING.

Okay, so how bout leaving the bottom pane empty until an album is clicked? It would prompt the fairly unobservant user (raises hand) to become active in using the panes, focusing their attention on where they should start anyway? (I do feel a bit dumb, btw. )

Edit: I mean any item in the filter panes, not just album or artist.

Kambriel · « **Reply #12 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:35:52 pm »

Omni: Geeze, I didn't even think of that. Well, there would still be the panes for multi-selection... hmmm. So the question would be, WOULD there be any benefit at all to adding a tree view of the library struction ANYWHERE? My head says not really. (My heart likes the familiarity of the tree, but that's fading fast as I'm working through it. We should have a resident therapist in here!

It would just add the complications you mentioned, without adding any new functionality or allowing us to see subsets of the library any more clearly.

Omni · « **Reply #13 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:36:54 pm »

Quote

I never made that claim, I did say that this group has way more than it's fair share of power users (I'm not one), so maybe as a group, we are not the best indicator of what the general public would buy.

Gotcha! I knew that. I was just making at point at your expense (since you and I were just debating the point on another thread). I meant no harm. Sorry!

Omni

Omni · « **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:41:18 pm »

Quote

Kambriel,Omni,

I only became a "power user" by trying to push MC to its limit. I think anyone who uses MC is a power user to some degree. If they weren't theyd use WInamp or WMP 6.4. Give your self a bit of PU credit MC is so powerful and is so much more than just a media player that it seems crazy to even try to only use it this way.

Well, truth be known, I have been secretly waiting for JRiver to introcuce regular expressions as a means of searching the library. That would certainly scare away Joe Average, I think.

gkerber · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:50:35 pm »

As a unix guy, re's are easy....

MachineHead · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2003, 03:55:52 pm »

You guys are funny. After only a half dozen builds or so, there seems to be some consensus amongst you that this should all be set in stone.

My wife proved lastnight that a new user, and she is, would just be lost. You cannot discount this part of the equation. J River would love to sell you guys a new license to some fancy build because you know, after a lot of trial and error, how to do things. No big deal. But somewhere down the line someone is going to hear about these mp3 things and might stumble across MC-MJ just like most of us. And find out that it isn't much fun because of all the power user features. Can you say MMJB, or WMP? Wow, these are simple to use, screw MC. I don't want to take a course at night school just to learn how to use it.

There should really be some though as to how this stuff gets put out.

Jim- You're probably reading this(?) You should go out on the street down there some day and just ask someone to try it out and give you an impression of what they think. Give both versions a fair go, too.

Note: They should be somewhat computer literate and a few key questions could sort out those who have a hard time tying their shoes, like me.

Kambriel · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2003, 04:12:24 pm »

Machinehead: I've been doin a lot of thinking since I started the thread, and I'm rapidly approaching the conclusion that I don't really care whether people get turned off of MC because it has more functionality than many people need. My wife uses Musicmatch Jokebox, and that's just fine by me... she's happy with that so I'm happy with that. (Wise saying... when the lady of the house isn't happy... NOBODY's happy!!)

So, I'm putting all my attention into suggesting ways to make the panes system more intuitive, rather than thinking of suggestions on how to include what is already beginning to seem like a legacy system.

(Of course, it could also be that I need to get more sleep... ZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz......)

MachineHead · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2003, 04:29:15 pm »

Quote

don't really care whether people get turned off of MC because it has more functionality than many people need.

Maybe you don't. But the guys that are trying to sell it to the masses might..

Kambriel · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2003, 04:31:19 pm »

Yep they might, but I've decided that I'm not going to worry about THAT either.

In my experience, techies and marketers rarely even see each other... the main conversation at their respective water fountains is 'are they a myth?'

sraymond · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2003, 05:10:28 pm »

I wanted to throw in my 2.3 cents (adjusted for inflation) on this topic.

You can't please both new users and power users at the same time... it's mutually exclusive - at least until the "holy grail" of interfaces is invented! Who knows, maybe the panes are it? But trees are not...

There is a learning curve with almost any software. That's just about a given (not quite, but almost)... so the point of discussion: how steep is the curve?

I'd respectfully offer that it's way to early to answer that question comparatively between the tree and pane.

A closing thought... if software developers always went with what was familiar (guaranteeing no one gets lost!), we'd be back in the days of DOS or Win3.1.

Scott-

P.S. One test on one person does not a statistically significant sample make.

P.P.S. Sometimes you've got to give people not what they want, but what they need. And some people don't know what they "need".

P.P.P.S. There's an old programming adage that the software should not drive the process... rather the process should drive the software. How this relates to the topic at hand, I'm not exactly sure. Do we naturally think in trees, or is that a software construct that we've internalize in our brains???

gkerber · « **Reply #21 on:** June 17, 2003, 05:20:31 pm »

Quote

Maybe you don't. But the guys that are trying to sell it to the masses might..

Exactly. I don't claim to know a thing about their sales numbere, nor is it any of my business, but if they don't get good numbers, and good cash flow, developments stops.

gkerber · « **Reply #22 on:** June 17, 2003, 05:25:51 pm »

Quote

You can't please both new users and power users at the same time... it's mutually exclusive - at least until the "holy grail" of interfaces is invented! Who knows, maybe the panes are it? But trees are not...

There is a learning curve with almost any software. That's just about a given (not quite, but almost)... so the point of discussion: how steep is the curve?

I'd respectfully offer that it's way to early to answer that question comparatively between the tree and pane.

A closing thought... if software developers always went with what was familiar (guaranteeing no one gets lost!), we'd be back in the days of DOS or Win3.1.

Scott-

P.S. One test on one person does not a statistically significant sample make.

P.P.S. Sometimes you've got to give people not what they want, but what they need. And some people don't know what they "need".

All progress stems from change, but not all change is progress.

With that said, striving for change is part our culture and a good thing. But just because it's new, doesn't make it better or better for the masses. And I always get scared when people start thinking know what best for me before I do....

rocketsauce · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2003, 05:37:09 pm »

Quote

On the whole the majority of users are happy with the new system.

Majority of users? I don't really know, but I would imagine that it's a fairly small group of MC users that have downloaded and installed the beta, and an even smaller group who kept using it and came to these forums to offer their suggestions and opinions.

Rob

Doof · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2003, 06:44:48 pm »

Quote

My wife proved lastnight that a new user, and she is, would just be lost.

Actually, all you've proven is that your wife had a hard time figuring it out.

I'm sure I could find somebody that would be confused with the tree. Would that prove to you that the tree is a bad idea? Of course not.

So rather than say, "My wife couldn't figure it out so it must be bad." wouldn't it be better to say, "Here are the problems my wife had with it." and come up with ways to address those issues?

It's already been demonstrated that the paned view is more powerful than the tree view. Now what we really should be doing is trying to figure out how to simultaneously make it as easy to use as possible.

Doof · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2003, 06:56:31 pm »

Thought this illustrated my point pretty well...

Hope JC doesn't mind me quoting him over here.

Quote

I'd like to jump in here and relate my experience, as it seems relevant to this discussion.

I purchased an iPod a few weeks ago and began looking for alternative software about the second time I fired up MMJB

I heard about MC 9 from another forum (www.ipodlounge.com) and installed 9.0.174 (I think). I played around with that version on my test computer for a couple of weeks. Smartlists were amazing and I could see the wonderful functionality they provided. However, I didn't like the way I had to navigate my music library. It didn't feel smooth and intuitive as it does on the iPod. I remained firmly undecided.

After hearing (err ... reading) the posts about version 9.1, I decided to take the plunge and try it. I purchased about 2 hours later. The changes made the entire program more intuitive for me. Although I'm very familiar with the "tree" interface of windows, the panes struck a nerve (in a good way) and made everything 'click' for me.

I immediately ctrl-clicked on two artists ... and 'voila' ... just what I expected. This type of 'ad-hoc' song filtering was something that was just not easily possible with the tree view.

In the end, the new pane view matches the way I prefer to use the software. In no way am I a "power user" ... in fact, I'm probably still more in the 'newbie' camp at this point. The panes were a more accessible way to navigate my music library.

I know there are many who prefer the tree view. Everyone has their preferences ... I just thought you might like to hear of a 'newbie' experience with both the tree and pane views.

Hope this helps

sraymond · « **Reply #26 on:** June 17, 2003, 07:18:29 pm »

Quote

And I always get scared when people start thinking know what best for me before I do....

Gkerber,

I hesitate to point out that if this weren't true (people starting to think they know what is best for you before you do), you would have very, very little software installed on your computer.

I say "hesitate", because I certainly don't want to offend you or start a long, drawn out discussion on software development theology (and it *is* a religion for some!)

I like the quote:

Quote

All progress stems from change, but not all change is progress.

Very true... change does not always equal better. Well said.

Scott-

Omni · « **Reply #27 on:** June 17, 2003, 07:29:48 pm »

<deleted>

(I misread the post I was replying to.)

Kambriel · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2003, 07:40:16 pm »

Okay, let's all play nice here.

There have been a lot of good posts in this thread, hopefully a lot of food for thought for the powers that be. We all CERTAINLY explored the idea I had when I started the thread, and I do think we've come up with a lot of constructive stuff!

I think I can sum it up (I know this is a presumption, but I'm going to give it a go) with this:

The designers that came up with the panes think this is progressive, and they have good points. Panes are much more flexible and useable than a simple tree. (I think we can agree that a COMPLICATED tree would be worse than panes!)

We can all think of people who would be confused by the panes, wouldn't have the need/patience/interest to learn the panes, and will probably stick with programs that present a tree view. Whether this is good for JRiver will have to be decided by their marketing program. (How many marketers DOES it take to change a light bulb??)

Everyone here, whether reluctant or not, will still learn the panes, but then we're all crazy anyway.

How's that... did I miss anything?

JollyJim · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2003, 08:58:18 pm »

Yes - I think you missed this point.

If an 'average' user is not prepared enough to explore the panes because trees are all they're used to, then how are they going to find out some of the more imaginitive features of MC. For instance, getting into hairstyle, changing visualisations, changing skins etc. If your assumption is that panes are too complicated, then all of MC is too complicated for the 'average' user.

My view is that MC is designed in such an attractive way that it invites users to explore it's features. If a new user does'nt want to get past a prehistoric tree, then I doubt very much that they're the type of user who will want to pay out forty bucks or so - they'll stay with WMP 'cos they got it for free and it will satisfy them.

I'm cheering JRiver on with the panes and if I never see another tree in my lifetime, then I'll be more than happy. Staying with a tree limits any imaginative progress to zero.

Listening to: 'I Talk To The Trees' from 'If Ever I would Leave You' by 'Bryn Terfel' on Media Center 9.1

(ps - this is NOT recommended listening !!)

Best wishes - Jim

xen-uno · « **Reply #30 on:** June 17, 2003, 09:23:22 pm »

So far you can have your cake and eat it too. Both lookup/view methods are still there last I looked on B200 (or should I look closer?...I'm on MJ8 here at home). If they're not...then they should be. As I remember from earlier today at work...both can coexist with no layout changes.

Listening to: 'Feed The Tree' from 'Star' by 'Belly' on Media Jukebox

(ps - this is HIGHLY recommended listening !!)

10^-27

Kambriel · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2003, 09:57:52 pm »

Well, I think the tree is gone (only tree I see in .201 is the menu for views and CD/DVD/misc stuff.)

I don't think the tree will come back. We'll have to wait and see if people stop using MC because there's no tree... and we'll have to wait and see how much of an issue it really turns out to be. Being a tech-head, personally I think the panes are a good thing, but then I'm the type of person who will update drivers for no other reason than that they're newer.

(ps, listening to 'In Memory Of Trees' by 'Enya' ... it's making me very sleepy and I think I'll go to bed. So I recommend it for insomniacs.)

jam · « **Reply #32 on:** June 17, 2003, 10:42:55 pm »

There is a tree, smartlist.

I'm making many smartlists for each artist. It is worse than tree but at least I don't need to move cursor to pane views until I want to pick few albums intead of all albums.

I'm not kidding, BTW.

MachineHead · « **Reply #33 on:** June 18, 2003, 12:40:41 am »

Quote

So rather than say, "My wife couldn't figure it out so it must be bad."

I didn't say this. She isn't an idiot, and it was her first impressions.

I did try to hint at making this easier.

NoCodeUK · « **Reply #34 on:** June 18, 2003, 03:19:07 am »

I am wondering if when the development cycle changes again and a muusic only version becomes a reality if this will contain tree instead of panes. A very stripped down version of MC (an MJ 9 if you will) that was solely for music and did not need an interface that would also incorporate Images and Videos could use the tree as before. I think personally the tree was what was holding MC back from being able to work with all the media types. It works very well for smply music. It does not work well for viewing images. An interface that works for all of the various media needs to work dynamically so that it can incorporate what is needed by all of them. I think this is the only possibility if the panes are here to stay. Those who only use MJ for music and want it to be simple could use the stripped down version, those who want to use MC for all of its various media organisation functions use the full version. The stripped down version does everything MC can do now for music but does not incorporate the other features. The full version obviously includes everything

I don't know what J Rivers development plans are but I wonder if this could be a serious possibility... It would not involve support issues relating to differnt software as they would be sharing pretty much the same codebase....

Adam

rocketsauce · « **Reply #35 on:** June 18, 2003, 03:47:30 am »

Quote

I think personally the tree was what was holding MC back from being able to work with all the media types. It works very well for simply music. It does not work well for viewing images.

I was thinking along the same lines after I finally downloaded the beta to see what all the fuss was about.
I just don't think the same complexity and flexibility needed to meaningfully organize images is required for organizing music files. I think images naturally lend themselves to a more "relational" way of organizing than music does.

Anyway, most of the multimedia capabilities of MC are lost on me since I don't download or watch video clips or movies or dvds or listen to web radio on my computer. I also will probably never use MC to organize images. I would tend towards a program that would integrate more with whatever image editing software that I use (ie., Photoshop Elements and Album).

Rob

xen-uno · « **Reply #36 on:** June 18, 2003, 06:57:48 am »

I'm playing with B201 now. I guess the reason I didn't notice any diff's in the tree is that I never used views that would show up nested (that is...more than 1 level deep)...or I had smartlists/playlists that did the same thing. I generally like how B201 is set up, but for ML, if I kill the panes completely, it leaves a gap that can't be filled. It just sits there reminding me that it's "Empty (click here....".

I don't go through great panes to make sure everything is organized perfectly (other than good filename formatting and complete tagging). I drive MC in a rather spontaneous manner in regard to song selection.

Listening to: 'Haven't Got Time for the Pane' by 'Carly Simon' on Media Center 9.1

10^-27

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Treehuggers and panemongers... UNITE! (Read 6619 times)

gkerber

gkerber

MachineHead

MachineHead

sraymond

gkerber

gkerber

sraymond

MachineHead