Print

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

[MrHaugen]

Sorry if I've taken your words out of context, but those I've quoted above suggest you'd be able to get exactly what you're looking for by configuring a view in the solution I've described.

Off course, this could be done with views. But how many of them should I have?? What about the times I want to combine genre with ratings/reviews or other things? Views are not ment to be kept in hundreds. You'd be completely lost. I think you are looking for the exact same thing as me. Only that you need a special field or two more than those I described?
First of all we have to have the info pane and full screen info show us the right things. And then we could have a filter. And THEN we can discuss what needs to be filtered. I believe 95% of the people or more would suffice by filtering ratings, genere, actors, rating/reviews, a set of durations, Watched/Not watched and a set of Not watched in 30 days, 3 months, 6 monts, 1 year as an example.

A small popup box with some useful filters could simplify things a lot.

It would. Or replace it with the info pane. I'm up for what ever, as long as it goes well with the rest of the skin.

BTW, I'll send you a PM with the details for the conference meeting 

[rick.ca]

Off course, this could be done with views. But how many of them should I have?? What about the times I want to combine genre with ratings/reviews or other things? Views are not ment to be kept in hundreds. You'd be completely lost. I think you are looking for the exact same thing as me. Only that you need a special field or two more than those I described?

How many views you have is up to you. I find it annoying having to choose between multiple views, so I would have only a handful. Each one would have a very specific (not necessarily narrow) purpose. Many of us do this now—for different types of music (rock/pop, jazz, classical), video (movies, series, home), etc. The same idea applies to filters, and would have to be applied to each of these existing "type" views. I would start (and perhaps end) with movies, and probably create just two views for filtering. Both would contain some key categories, like genre, year, rating and date viewed. One would have all the categories I'm likely to want for selecting a movie based on it's attributes—tones, category, mpaa, country, language, rank, etc. The other would include all the people categories—for when I'm more interested in selecting (or just browsing) based on the people associated with the movies.

Each of these views, of course, would have too many categories in them to be viable under the current navigation system. But with the changes I've suggested—being able to navigate categories randomly without losing any selections—it would be very workable. For each of these two views, I would be most comfortable having 10 or so categories, of which I would typically use 3 or 4 in a query. Just for fun, I might make a third view that would contain all categories. It might be useful for unusual queries where I would be more concerned about having everything available than efficiency.

And THEN we can discuss what needs to be filtered.

What is to be filtered has to be completely configurable. We're not restricted in any way in adding categories to views. Why should we be restricted in the categories used for filtering? The fact that 95% of users will only use a small number of fields 95% of the time is not relevant to this question. There's just no point in restricting it. To emphasize the point with a practical consideration: Your set of fields that would "suffice" seems plausible, but for every one of them I'm using custom fields.

[MrHaugen]

What is to be filtered has to be completely configurable. We're not restricted in any way in adding categories to views. Why should we be restricted in the categories used for filtering? The fact that 95% of users will only use a small number of fields 95% of the time is not relevant to this question. There's just no point in restricting it. To emphasize the point with a practical consideration: Your set of fields that would "suffice" seems plausible, but for every one of them I'm using custom fields.

Views and filtering part 78
You still talk about views FOR filtering. I don't get that. Why make it so complicated? There should be no separate filtering views. All views should be able to be filtered. At least for Videos and Series. Views is static and made to group larger media types and categories. Filters should be used to narrow down the items in each view or category. With a few clicks you'd be able to sort out the things that you're not interested in. I would simply use a view called Movies for this. I might contain much, but you can easily narrow it down to a few items that you want to see that day.

Customization
I'm not arguing that customization of filtering would be good. What I'm saying is that a default set of filters first have to be in place that most of the users think would suffice. It also have to be a set of most used tags, so it's not over whelming and slow to use.

There have to be done some serious work on filtering to be able to add you're own fields. Fields like Genre is probably a simple task, but just think of "Not watched since" category if it was not there by default. You'd have to select the tag, then you'd have to make the queries depending on how you would group it (like not watched in 0 - 120 days), and then give each groups a name. To get this to work for every possible field would be some quite some work i recon.
So, I think it's highly relevant. It's a bigger chance to implement something relatively easy at start, and then ask for improvements later on. To risk J River skipping the idea because all you use is custom fields, and that you demand complete customization, that's not good for anybody.


I'm going on a month summer holly day now. I'm looking forward to testing the new builds when I get back. Just crossing my fingers for a good info pane and full view, with customizable tags

[rick.ca]

You still talk about views FOR filtering. I don't get that. Why make it so complicated?

You know full well I'm describing it that way because a "view" is a concept that currently exists in the program, is configurable in Theater View, and which I propose be adapted to provide more of a filtering capability.

What I'm saying is that a default set of filters first have to be in place that most of the users think would suffice.

As I said in my post, providing a limited set of filters only creates problems for no good reason. In a system that is completely configurable, a "default" is easily provided in the form of a default configuration—exactly as such things are done now. Look at Tools - Options - Theater View. If there were nothing there (when it was in the "default" or "as shipped" state), you would see nothing in Theater View. And yet all that is there is fully configurable. I can't fathom why you would want that aspect of the program to be abandoned just because some filtering capability is being introduced.

Whether the current navigation method of narrowing a file selection is retained or replaced with filtering, a default set of categories for filtering would be provided. This would serve the dual purpose of providing a reasonably functional first time experience (that might work fine for many without modification), and an illustration of how the filtering can be adapted to one's personal circumstances and preferences. I would start by simply changing the categories that don't work to the equivalent custom categories in my database. You might change the default grouping for Last Played from 30 to 120 days. We would all be able to remove what we don't need and add what we do. Everything I'm describing already exists in the current configuration facility. Why do I "still talk about views FOR filtering"? Because, in this regard, nothing has to change!!!

So, I think it's highly relevant. It's a bigger chance to implement something relatively easy at start, and then ask for improvements later on. To risk J River skipping the idea because all you use is custom fields, and that you demand complete customization, that's not good for anybody.

I trust the developers have no difficulty understanding something similar to what I've proposed fits best with what they've developed so far, involves the least effort to implement and would be readily understood by users. I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be further changes later on. But this is clearly a sensible starting point. Arbitrarily restricting filtering means more work for no good reason, and only creates problems for users. That's not good for anybody.

And in a feeble attempt to suggest this discussion has anything at all to do with the original subject of this thread... 

The very same principles I'm advocating here apply to the Info Panel. The fields displayed in the panel need to be configurable. The easiest and most useful way to do so is make it fully configurable in exactly the same way views are. The configuration dialog should have a new section similar to "Columns to show" in Customize View (in Standard View). Here, of course, it would be "Rows to show," and would allow any field or expression to be added and placed in any order. There would be two of these—one for the area under the thumbnail, and one for the panel itself. This is a rather simplistic form of customization, but it's simple, flexible and surely the easiest to implement. A sensible starting point that might be improved later on—by adding simple things like placing short fields side-by-side, to the more complex like facilitating custom layouts.

[Daydream]

At the risk of going a bit off the rails , my views/filtering will be so nice, that based on what and when I watched, my MC will use a weighted average to determine the next item, and greet me with "Dude, you have to watch this!" (still no Majel Barett voice though)

[...] to the more complex like facilitating custom layouts.

Dign, ding, ding, ding, ding!! All leds went green over here

[rick.ca]

Sorry, that wasn't intended to be more than a 2-dinger.

I was thinking of custom layouts for the Info Panel only. And the more important idea I was trying to convey is this can wait until after the more simplistic configurable view has been provided. You've somehow created the impression you don't like waiting, but I really don't thing this a bad thing. The "simple version" would give us all the opportunity to set things up the way we want it—content wise—and then get some experience actually using it. Then I believe there would be some great feedback as to would be required of configurable layouts and how they should work. On the other hand, the simple version might be so satisfying you won't see custom layouts any sooner than your fully-automatic AI-based voice filter.

still no Majel Barett voice though

She's dead now, so that would be a bit creepy anyway.

[Daydream]

On the other hand, the simple version might be so satisfying you won't see custom layouts any sooner than your fully-automatic AI-based voice filter.

If that happens I have one word: crusades! 
Meanwhile, with so much time on my hands while waiting I'm learning Python and sharpen my XML skills. U can guess where those are used.

She's dead now, so that would be a bit creepy anyway.

You googled her, admit it. Star Trek is forever.

[rick.ca]

I'm learning Python and sharpen my XML skills. U can guess where those are used.

The holodeck—duh!

You googled her, admit it.

No way! She's the only "Majel" in my Person Video Database.

[MrHaugen]

You know full well I'm describing it that way because a "view" is a concept that currently exists in the program, is configurable in Theater View, and which I propose be adapted to provide more of a filtering capability.

As I said in my post, providing a limited set of filters only creates problems for no good reason. In a system that is completely configurable, a "default" is easily provided in the form of a default configuration—exactly as such things are done now. Look at Tools - Options - Theater View. If there were nothing there (when it was in the "default" or "as shipped" state), you would see nothing in Theater View. And yet all that is there is fully configurable. I can't fathom why you would want that aspect of the program to be abandoned just because some filtering capability is being introduced.

Whether the current navigation method of narrowing a file selection is retained or replaced with filtering, a default set of categories for filtering would be provided. This would serve the dual purpose of providing a reasonably functional first time experience (that might work fine for many without modification), and an illustration of how the filtering can be adapted to one's personal circumstances and preferences. I would start by simply changing the categories that don't work to the equivalent custom categories in my database. You might change the default grouping for Last Played from 30 to 120 days. We would all be able to remove what we don't need and add what we do. Everything I'm describing already exists in the current configuration facility. Why do I "still talk about views FOR filtering"? Because, in this regard, nothing has to change!!!

I'm back!
And I'll be damned. After about 15 replies or so, you still don't get my point.

As I understand it, you want:
- Views to be replaced by filters
- Total costumization for what to be shown. Both for the media distplay and the info panel

What I want you to understand, is that this things have to coexist if we want a true multi media experience.
- Views are today fully costumizable, and groups things in categories that are and feel extremly static when we first use Theater View. It workes great for most things.
- What I want is to STILL use this views. Because, again, it works great for some things.
- When you have a view with many items like movies and want to shorten the list to see all the info from relevant movies, you apply a filter (to that view). Nothing static and nothing that will be saved.

Have you ever tried to use a DVD profiling program? Think of the whole list you get as a single view in Theater View. Movies. What do you want to do with 500 movies in the list? You want to look through it all to find things with the genre Romance, or Thriller? I don't think so. You simply can't remove a static set of views and replace it with filtering. It would take to much time to filter every time. But every time you get to much media in a view you'll have to filter to get the count down to a managable size, so you can look at the info for each movie or series.

[rick.ca]

And I'll be damned. After about 15 replies or so, you still don't get my point.

I got your point from the beginning. I disagree with it. You've been so preoccupied with attacking my suggestions, your own remains rather flaccid. We had fun while you were gone, however.

[MrHaugen]

We had fun while you were gone, however.

Well, that's something

But can you explain to me how it would be doable to just filter media every time you want to narrow down the results? Can you explain how this can be less time consuming than having the hierarchical way of navigating today, and then apply filters on top of that when it's needed? When you're still not budging after so many posts there have to be some hold in you're theories Please tell me step by step, with a few lines what you want to accomplish. It would be interessting to hear. I'm afraid I've just lost some importent elements of you're idas previously. To much text can easily do that I'm afraid.

[rick.ca]

To much text can easily do that I'm afraid.

If I have posted "too much" text, it can only be because I've been asked over and over again to explain the same thing. So I won't be doing that again. My previous response was intended to suggest we had no difficulty concluding this discussion while you were gone. Now, you're free to review it or not. I'm confident I've expressed my views on the matter fully and completely. If you have anything to add, then please do so.