Print

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

[rick.ca]

14.0.17 (06/22/2009)
7. NEW: Theater View Info Panel shows full page information about movies, television programs, etc.

Thanks!

Obviously, there are various ways to to this, but this seems to work fine. And it seems to fit nicely with the navigation scheme. Now all that's needed is the ability to configure and arrange the fields that are displayed. I hope that will also include the fields that appear below the poster when the Info Panel is displayed. If I could do so, I would use that space to display (first) short and classification fields like year, genre, director, duration, tagline—not longer fields likely to use all the available space, like description and actors.

I noticed one issue: If "Tag" is selected from the roller while in the Info Panel, the changes apply to all the in the view—not just the single movie being viewed. It seems the movie needs to be "selected" before it can be tagged by itself. I didn't care to test it, but it looks like the same behaviour may apply to "Delete"—which seems a bit scary. I suppose the Info Panel has just replaced what used to be a list, and the behaviour of the roller has not yet been changed.

[MrHaugen]

I agree. This is the start of a really nice setup for Video and Series.

What I'm missing is a way of configuring what to be shown, and in wich order. Also a way of differentiating this setup for each category audio, video and images. I'd like to have the Bios and Lyrics for Music, but for Videos and series I want the description text (preview or something). A tag for each details could work. Like:

Library Field     Music Video Images Info Pane
Artist                    x       -        -          x
Series                   -       x        -          x
Name                    -       x        x          x
Album                   x       -        x          x
Duration                x       x        -          x
Lyrics                    x       -       -          -
Preview                 -       x        -          -

Or you can flip this around and just be able to add fields under each Media category and choose if it should be shown in info panel and full view. I'm pretty sure you can make something great here.

There should also be a filter section added. So you can filter on years, watched/not watched, genre etc.

One thing that I'm NOT happy with is the focus on the Cover art only. Sure, there is a small text underneath each item in the list, but at least when it comes to video/series, this i way to little.
Please use the space under the Cover art for essential details for Music, Video and images. Artist, Album, Year, Genre, Duration. This details should also be configurable, but can be the same as the full page view maby? Just with less details. What if you also have a option in the Full info page config to show or not to show the field there? That way you can remove things like preview, lyrics and stuff that takes to much space. I've added a suggestion in my illustration above.

[rick.ca]

Also a way of differentiating this setup for each category audio, video and images.

Although I was thinking primarily of video, my idea of the Info Panel being configurable included all media types. I still find the current configuration routine rather confusing, so I'll put it like this: At the "level" where Set rules for file display exists (in the default configuration, I suppose that's Audio, Images and Video), there could be another command, Set Info Panel layout, which would apply to all applicable views below that level. Perhaps it needs to be customizable at the level of each view. If so, it could default to the level above so it wouldn't be unnecessarily complicated.

I notice the Info Panel is different for Audio and Images—notably in that it shows no information under the thumbnail, as it does for Video. I see no reason why it should be different. Perhaps the way it could work is if no fields are configured for the area below the thumbnail (i.e., the text area as it is in the current Video view), then that space would be used by the thumbnail (as it is currently in the Audio and Image views). Then the same configuration scheme could be used for all media types: Specify whatever fields you want (or none)—in any order—to appear under the thumbnail, and the same for the Info Panel.

One reason for making the configuration flexible is that it must accommodate custom fields. More than half my video fields are custom (many of the standard fields provided are not of the right type). I'm sure the same is true for other users, and for the other media types. I believe a "standard" non-configurable Info Panel would be useless to many and an annoyance to most others. The flexible approach—choose any fields and place them in any order—is simple and has to satisfy every need.

There should also be a filter section added. So you can filter on years, watched/not watched, genre etc.

I like this idea, but it seems to be essentially the same thing I was wondering about in Theater View Navigation. I expressed it in terms of "Panes"—because that's the MC paradigm—but it's fair to say what I'm looking for is "filtering."

How would filtering be implemented, if not via the current navigation scheme? In other words, in keeping with the current navigation model, shouldn't the filtering be done before getting to the Info Panel (i.e., the list before the Info Panel is the filtered result)?

[Daydream]

There should also be a filter section added. So you can filter on years, watched/not watched, genre etc.

That part I didn't get it. Filter what, filter how, where? You can't type, really, for an in-place filtering since it'll take forever with anything but a keyboard; but I probably didn't understand you right. Can you please explain again 'cause I really like to see where you're going with the idea.

[rick.ca]

I really like to see where you're going with the idea.

I would appreciate your views on Theater View Navigation. I shouldn't assume what MrH is thinking, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about essentially the same functionality. I don't see a way support multiple value filtering (i.e., specifying multiple value or a range of values for one category). But for some categories values can be grouped, so the result is similar, although not as flexible. Years, for example, can be grouped by decade, which perhaps would serve as well as the ability to select any range. Genres cannot be grouped, but I can put that category in my view three times so I can, in effect, have the filter "Genre1 AND Genre2 AND Genre3." Hmmm. There must be a better way.

[MrHaugen]

That part I didn't get it. Filter what, filter how, where? You can't type, really, for an in-place filtering since it'll take forever with anything but a keyboard; but I probably didn't understand you right. Can you please explain again 'cause I really like to see where you're going with the idea.

When you have a lot of movies or series you have to have some way of filtering the content. I'll write a couple of quick examples:

- Hit Filter, "Add filter", choose genre, choose Action. You'll end up with everything that contains Action in the genre tag like Action and Action Thrillers. There will still be a bunch of movies though, so you want to filter more (you could also add Thriller with another Genre filter and get Action Thriller movies as another example).
- You hit Filter and "Add filter", choose Ratings/Review. There is a preset lists with ratings going from "2 Stars or more", "3 Stars or more", "4 Stars or more", "5 Star only". You hit "4 Stars or more", but you're not sure what's been watched before. Need to add another filter.
- You hit Filter and "Add filter", choose Watched and select No.

You now have the perfect list, with good movies within the Action genre, that you have not previously watched. Something like this have to be added to make MC Theater View good for Video and Series handling.

[pwantzel]

How do you configure this?  All I see is "duration".  There must be a screen someplace to specify what's shown??

[SeaDrive]

I like the info panel but I noticed that it's a bit difficult to navigate out of when using a touchscreen. With a mouse, as soon as I move the cursor away from the info panel the info screen disappears. With a touchscreen that isn't an option. I see that I can use the back button on the top roller but it is not very obvious to most users and is quite small for navigation. The natural instinct there is to press teh 'Back' navigation button on a touchscreen which unfortunately takes you back 1 menu.

[Daydream]

You now have the perfect list, with good movies within the Action genre, that you have not previously watched. Something like this have to be added to make MC Theater View good for Video and Series handling.

What you and rick want is deeply inheriting the functionality of the standard view. That is the direct effect of MC exposing so much power with/from its database. How would that translate into a 10ft interface? I'm not sure they were meant to do that at all... Well so far I haven't seen it done and I guess it'll be tricky at best (without over-complicating everything). You don't have the space, and the options need to be navigated with a remote/touchscreen.

What would accomplish anything even remotely looking like what you suggest? Drop-down lists from items on the rollers?

[rick.ca]

What you and rick want is deeply inheriting the functionality of the standard view...

We want what we want. It's not helpful to suggest we want what we want due to some mental dysfunction. We could just as easily argue your failure to understand our point-of-view is for the same reason. That would be rather ironic, because...

Drop-down lists from items on the rollers?

...is one way it might work.

I'm too lazy to explain it all over again, so here's my recent pm to you:

The way the navigation model works is you "select" an item (or leave it as "all") for the current category, and then it moves to the next category defined in the view. If you're using playlists exclusively, I suppose you may not be using any categories at all.

I'll use movies as an example because the utility is obvious, but I want the capability for all media types. I'll want a view that will allow me to select a movie for viewing. Now this is very important: This is not for navigating to a specific movie that I know I want to watch. This is for choosing a movie to watch when I might have some clue as to the type of movie I'm in the mood for, but that's all.

So I might create a view with the categories genre, year, rating and duration. Now let say my thought is, "I'm tired, so maybe something that will keep me awake, but not to long because I need to sleep." So I select action, all, all, <100. Too many results. Fine, restrict it to those with a high rating. Oops. Those are all old movies—I want more recent ones—and therefore select the current decade. Too bad, I have no current, highly rated, not too long action movies. Well, maybe an adventure movie... Yes, it sounds crazy, but that's how the human brain works in making such a choice.

In Standard View, using panes, this process is easy and fast—because the selection in any category can be changed and the results updated without affecting the selections in other categories. In other words, I can "jump around," making changes to my selection criteria, and making each change based on feedback from the current results. In Theater View, you have to navigate back to the category you want to change, and then redo the selection in every category after it before seeing the results.

What the heck is a "database philosophy"? It IS a database, and I'm just pointing out one way in which it already doesn't work. As you've pointed out in other areas, I think the problem is many influential users and, sadly, the developers themselves, are stuck on paradigms that are unnecessarily restrictive. In this case, it's "users always know exactly what media they want, all that's required is an efficient way to navigate to it." Aside from being untrue, this is simply a useless concept. While it might seem a little more complicated, there is no technical impediment to it being both ways. And rather than being more complicated, being more flexible usually makes for things being more intuitive—because the user can discover the best way to achieve a result without constantly asking, "Why won't it do this?"

[Daydream]

I advise you to get a super hi-vision resolution screen too. Then you can have a Standard view with big colorful icons.

[Daydream]

Scratch this, too many clicks. Maybe in the foreseeable future I will be able to delete one on my own posts entirely.

I do get one you want, especially in the view on you in-depth explanation. I would like it too. But. It changes the entire paradigm of Theater view. Pretty sure for the better, but being practical I don't see it happening. It's another split of the goals to be pursued. One to properly display what we already have (aka skinning, ordering, formatting and the likes). Two (now) navigating it.

The navigation part is going to be something totally new, since like you're saying it needs to bring elements of the database in, for navigational purposes, not for displaying. The difference being that what you need to display - you need to display. Find and allocate space. Navigation options doesn't need to be fully visible at all times, but they need to be there when needed. I can go in full creative mode and start imagining free-floating layers (3D cartwheel options and holographic television were next on my list but I stopped). There is no precedent that I know of, so we (well, JRiver for starters) have to commit to brainstorm about it until the best solution is found. At the rate the things are going... I wonder why don't I want to deal with this split of the goals?

[)p(]

I use for movies a hierarchy like this: seen > duration > rating > format > genre.
Sometimes I make a mistake and sometimes I have to go a few step backs that is true, but it feels very natural and fast to me. Dropdown filters are more flexible en powerful but do not flow as neat as a hierarchy like this does with a remote. I have nothing against making interactive filters available as an option for dedicated skins else they will only clutter the interface for those that don't use them.

peter

[rick.ca]

It changes the entire paradigm of Theater view.

This is nothing more than a premise that makes it impossible to see that it's not really very difficult to add the functionality we seek. It may not be practical to try to make it do same kind of filtering as is possible in Standard View, but that doesn't mean that no filtering is possible. As I explained before, just being able to "jump" to different categories in a view (via the roller) and change the selection (without all categories after that one having to be redone) would be a big improvement. This could easily coexist with the current behaviour. In other words, you could make changes to selection in any category (i.e., filter behaviour), or back up and change the path to a different selection (i.e., navigation behaviour). While I wouldn't rule it out, I do have difficulty seeing how multiple items per category might be selected. That doesn't imply only being able to select one item is not of any use. Categories can be configured so items are grouped or are based on a smart list—so they will work well as filters even if only one item at a time can be selected.

I have nothing against making interactive filters available as an option for dedicated skins else they will only clutter the interface for those that don't use them.

But what if they could peacefully coexist? Currently, the second roller is not even in use during "navigation" between categories—it could be used for this purpose. Besides, this would be the more sensible default behaviour in any case. At any point in the navigation of categories, it should be possible to jump to any other category or the results view via the roller, or navigate to the next or previous category. If the latter is chosen, there is no need to reset the selection from whatever it was previously—it can just as easily be changed, reset to "all" or left alone.

[Daydream]

Since I'm at it let me ask JRiver a couple of questions too.

Was there some kind of experiment with the Theater view in the last versions? I mean as an experiment I'd understand it but otherwise... hey, maybe actually somebody thinks these are cool features!



Double vertical scrollers, a third roller with placement all over the place (since second roller up top does not appear), alignment of any kind not there; purpose - I don't know but my take is that it will confuse everybody.

Then checking all the way down



I don't know how much if any action that area will catch with a touch interface, but I'm afraid one would be able to scroll under displayed metadata (for all purposes and intentions it does with a mouse, even if a mouse is not the proper tool for this interface).

Next, 3D elements. I have thought long and hard about them. It's not that I don't appreciate your work, which I do, but I cannot see where would you go with them. Everything I see 3D either as constructs with sprites on them (for cover art) or floating in the background, I can't help but recall Wolfenstein 3D back in 1994. I give you credit for implementation, which shows that you are pretty comfortable coding for it, but that doesn't make it automatically a slick addition to an interface.

I think that for years you guys have coded a neverending number of features and amazing functionality into MC. This is not about that. This is about an exercise in STYLE. This is about the red paint on a Ferrari. This is about "whoa".

And ultimately this is about you letting us doing what we imagine with the Theater View interface or you thinking that you know better. I don't have a problem per se with either notion because while it's your choice what to do about it, it's also my choice what do with my time. And one thing that I know is that I'm not going to sit around for this whole push-pull psychology to take effect, so that after another year of a feature showing up here, another feature showing up there, we will eventually either arrive where we (the users) want it, or arrive exactly nowhere.

I am currently already TIRED of this whole Theater View discussion. I want to enjoy my collections for once, to get back home and see everything popping out within the gorgeous skin that I could've put together last weekend. I want to get the feeling of general satisfaction. I want to come back here and discuss with my friends from time to time what other COOL things we can add (which ultimately will sell your product better). I don't want to debate anymore about having the option to have the options. I don't want to debate and smash heads together for things that might never get implemented.

There are some very cool guys around here with vision and intent. For some reasons they seem to have all the patience in the world when it comes to Theater View. I do not. It's been some 7-8 months, maybe more, since Obsidian was put together. I will stick around for a couple more. If I don't see drastic changes to open the skinning options I'll go somewhere else where I can get them.

[rick.ca]

This is about an exercise in STYLE.

Silly me. I should have realized I didn't know what I was talking about when I started this topic.

[Daydream]

Are we rubbing each other the wrong way, cause I'm not sure anymore...?

Many of the things we discussed would've fit better in the other thread you opened; but who on Earth put you up to open 2 threads at once on such close topics??

Navigation is something about logic choices that fit. If you ever authored a DVD in detail there you have to make sure that clicking left-down-right-up (with repeats if necessary) you can get from anywhere to anywhere in the menus without getting lost. MC in its latest beta already has some gaps in the keyboard navigation for Theater view (press down and you're going left (back)).

But the end user will take that for granted. That should just be. What I want for Theater view is to look nice and act nice. Style, slick, class, more useful details that I can comprehend at once ("ooooh, look in that corner it has a Blu-ray logo, means this is a rip from a Blu-Ray..." etc). For a change can I have that, and all the expressions on 3 full rows take a backseat? And then we'll compare which feature sells better.

Rick, I guess what you want from this discussion and it's not coming would be a wicked smart repurpose of the 2 (original rollers) that will keep things tight and allow additional navigation somehow. I imagined something at some point with a different behavior for the rollers, of what should appear and what should disappear depending on where you are while navigating, but that requires pen and paper and a lot of time to make sure you don't get lost.

Meanwhile JRiver will decorate my entire house with wireless remote options that everything will start by clapping hands. And then - what navigation?

[rick.ca]

I guess what you want from this discussion and it's not coming would be a wicked smart repurpose of the 2 (original rollers) that will keep things tight and allow additional navigation somehow.

Well, no. From this discussion, I was hoping for some straightforward input that might help the developers finish off the long overdue Info Panel. It was in the other topic I raised the question of navigation. And I started by saying I didn't expect previous design decisions to be reopened, but was interested in how other users make do with what we've got. Maybe there's a more creative way I could configure it so it would serve me better. I only got into the roller thing to refute the argument what I wanted was impossible. It's actually so dirt-simple, perhaps I should be asking why it wasn't done that way in the first place—rather than for advice on how to adapt to it.

What I want for Theater view is to look nice and act nice.

And you've made a strong case (here, and in the past) your style standard will never be achieved, and your only hope is in custom skins. So shouldn't finishing the "acting nice" part be the priority, so developers can then focus making it skinnable? I don't understand how these things work, and there's obviously some overlap, but it seems logical the thing being skinned should be reasonably fixed in design before it's turned over to third party skin developers.

...everything will start by clapping hands.

Now there's an idea—a Clapper interface! 

[MrHaugen]

Why is it so hard to imagine a filter button on one of the rollers? This button could yield a dropdown lists, but I think it would be better with a new small window with a few options like:

-------------------------------------------------
|Filter by:                          Next page -> Genres  |
|                                                                   |
|Watched/Not Watched                                     |
|_____                                                           |
|Genre|                                                          |
|------                                                           |
|Rating/preview                                                |
|Format                                                          |
|Actors                                                           |
|                                                                    |
|Clear filters                                                     |
--------------------------------------------------


Just illustrating that the Genre Box is selected here. Ugly illustration, but I don't have time for photoshop. If you hit right when Genre is selected, you could get a new list of genres Action, Thriller, Drama, Crime etc. etc. Hit enter on Action and Thriller to select them. Hit left left to go back and the filters is applied. When a filter is applied it should be indicated somewhere that the content is filtered.

This could be done so elegantly. And don't tell me this is something that's not good for a low resolution display. This would take less than the normal theater view, and would not clutter the screen with a lot of new buttons and info.

Other Theater software have had this filtering capabilities for some time now. It CAN be done, and imo it have to be done to make a good movie/series part of Theater View.

[)p(]

If a popup window gets implemented like mrHaugen suggest, then please also consider adding a Sort by option like that. As noted above I dont really miss the interactive filtering but I do miss the lack of changing the sort method in theater view on the fly.

peter

[MrHaugen]

If a popup window gets implemented like mrHaugen suggest, then please also consider adding a Sort by option like that. As noted above I dont really miss the interactive filtering but I do miss the lack of changing the sort method in theater view on the fly.

peter

Bingo. A sort option like this would also be a good addition. I thought about writing about that too, but it slipped my mind.

[rick.ca]

Ugly illustration, but I don't have time for photoshop.

Oh, you're too modest. It makes me wonder if Daydream's craving for STYLE might be satisfied by a skin built entirely with ASCII Art.

Interesting idea, but why should filtering be done in such a different/separate way from the existing navigation mode when only one can be used at a time? I think it would be better to have some logical and clear method of switching modes, and then if filtering is chosen, change the behaviour so that multiple items (instead of one) can selected from each category—as you describe. The other main difference would be navigation to other categories would not change selections already made. It would be possible to jump to the results list at any time—but this would be a welcome behaviour in either mode. I do like your idea of just hitting left to see results, but maybe it would be almost as quick via a well-placed item on the roller (so it might just be up and enter). The roller could also have commands for "clear all filters," "toggle mode" and "sort by this category." And while we're at it, why not another step toward full-blown filtering—a command for changing the condition from an implicit AND to OR. That way, we could set filters like "Genre is Action or Thriller OR actors include Bruce Willis."

[MrHaugen]

Yea. I'm sure the roller could be used more, but then again it might get cluttered with options if everything is selected from them. I kinda like the way the info pane is today, with the Play buttons and more, and the text underneath. What if the Filter/search box I illustrated just takes the place of the info pane when filter/sorting is chosen? That way nothing would be presented as a "new window". Just a replacement of some of the info pane buttons and tags/filters.

Just drop the info of the movie or series and get the pane/window with right/left scrolling functionality as I described. This would off course just happen when you select filter/sort. We still need the view with move info most of the times.

I like this brain storming. It's digital evolution

[Daydream]

What if the Filter/search box I illustrated just takes the place of the info pane when filter/sorting is chosen? That way nothing would be presented as a "new window". Just a replacement of some of the info pane buttons and tags/filters.

I'll take that. I like it.

Now. I'm always guiding by 2 parameters: 1) navigation should be easy with a remote - a drop down list, I'm not sure that would be practical. You can jump out of it by mistake too easy and then ooops, what was I filtering by? 2) we can't bring the whole panes from standard view into Theater view, and again a drop down lists it's kind of a too close a resemblance (but it might just be me).

What I'm thinking about, especially considering what rick suggests, filtering by multiple criteria that you can see, it's like this. We would have 4-5 buttons (a customizable number anyway) that would indicate a category each. They can be fields but in my mind they are buttons, especially if they would land on the rollers. A button represents the genre, one the year, one the durration, one rating... . These buttons react a bit differently. You press Enter on them they change to the next item within their category and filter by it.

Take Genre. Currently it's All. Enter - Action. Enter - Adventure. Enter - Animation. The displayed lists gets filtered on the spot. You retain Up-Down-Left-Right navigation to get away from the said button. You settle on Sci-Fi as Genre. It remains like that indicating the Genre selection while you move to the next button indication... whatever you want. Say duration.

By the end of this 1) you have all the criteria you chose under your eyes at all times as long that you don't chose 25 criteria that won't fit on screen 2) you can go back and change any of them and the list will refilter with all the other criteria still in place. 3) no drop-downs, no concerns of space taken on screen, no navigation nightmares.

Keeping on thinking. One may say that you have to press too many Enters (or OK on the remote or whatever button is designated) to get to Sci-Fi (which is at "S"). We might take some chances and sacrifice the Up-Down navigation to get away from the button, and replace it with scrolling inside of it. We just need to identify how easy would be at that point to get away from the "Filter buttons" entirely to other elements on screen.

What do you think?

[MrHaugen]

I think that would be a really long roller, if all the choises would be presented there. I still think my suggestion would be somewhat easier, cleaner and more intuitive. Think of my approach with a touch screen:
- You select filter on the roller. My illustration show up in the info pane.
- You hit genre and flick to the right, showing all genres.
- You hit Action and the filter is applied. You flick down the list to Thriller and hit it to filter out everything that don't contain Action and Thriller.
- Flick left, hit Watched, flick right, hit Not Watched. Filter is applied
- Klick on a Movie to get the normal info pane details, and flick away through the filtered content

I would have to get my self a touch screen. A remote would work just as well. Just not so flickalicious.

[rick.ca]

First, I would like to check that we're on the same page. I assumed the current practise of "navigating through categories" is obvious, but maybe not. I've forgotten the default configuration, but I suppose one has to add categories before this is apparent. This is important because the filtering method I'm imagining is a modification of that behaviour. It occurs to me if you're not familiar with it, you won't understand what I'm talking about.

Also for clarity, let me call the existing "navigating through categories" (selecting one item or defaulting to "all") "navigating" and what we're talking about "filtering." If the latter feature is to be added, it must coexist with the former without creating any confusion. So if one navigates to a selection list and then encounters some sort of filter, what are they to make of it? In effect, they've already set a simple filter. Will the new filter reset that and start over? If so, what was the point of the original navigation? If not, is the user not going to ask "Why didn't it let me do this in the first place?"

While I like the idea of filtering in place, or getting to a results view in one key press, I don't think it's worth such a departure from the current behaviour. After all, most seem content with the current navigation scheme, no doubt in part because it filters thumbnails as it goes. So why not just modify the behaviour so it will work more like a filter?

As I imagine how this might work, another question comes to mind. Why even bother with "navigation" as a separate mode? The ultimate solution to the coexistence concern is to eliminate it. Except nothing would be eliminated! If one wanted to navigate to a selection, they would do so with filters in exactly the same way they do now with navigation. They would just be selecting one item in each category, ignoring the filtering capability of selecting multiple items. I suppose the fact that selections would be retained after navigating backwards through the categories could cause confusion. That could be dealt with by adding some sort of visual cue a selection (which might not be visible) is in effect. Knowing this, the user would have the option of resetting the selection simply by selecting "all."

All this would be completely customizable within the existing framework. There would be no need to add "buttons" or filtering criteria separately. Just add the categories you want—as you do now. Herein also lies the solution to having too many items to choose from. As I mentioned before, some categories can be grouped automatically. Those that can't can be replaced with expressions. For example, if I find selecting a number of genres from a list of 25-30 to be tedious, I can use instead an expression which groups them into a more manageable number. I could even leave the genre category there (following the expression category) for a two-level selection (e.g., choose "testosterone" and then genre would show only action, adventure, crime and thriller). Need I mention the WAF implications? Your genre expression could include a "chick flick" group which secretly excludes the chick flicks you can't bear to watch. OMG, think of the dent this could put in the divorce rate!

[MrHaugen]

You are talking about a mix of todays Views and filters. The results are about the same, but the way of setting it up is way different.
We are used to making lots of views for different types of media now. I group video by Music Movies, Divx, HD and DVD, Series, Comedy Clips etc. If you're intention is to make all of this things into hundreds of views with the combination of genre, watched/not watched, actors, ratings I belive you do have a hefty job ahead of you. SURE, it can be done. But is it really worth it pressing the right arrow button 50 times to get to the right view? I don't think so.

You use views to filter media into big chunks of similar types. Filters is used to reduce the number of results within a view to a minimum, so you can take the time to look at the cover art and read the info of each of the movies. Getting ridd of unwanted movies. And really, how many genres can it be? If there is a lot, then why can't we use the same SMS tequnique as we do in other views to jump to right artist? The filter selection indication could be a small text who shows what is selected. Placed somewhere at the top or bottom of the media list I guess. Filters should not be stored for each view. That would create confusion. When you go back or change to a different view all previous filters should be cleared.
This is a thing that should be optimized for Movies and Series imo. No need to bring music into this. At least not untill it have been done right for movies and series. But what the heck, in the end it would probably be a good way of making on the fly smartlists for music as well.

So, no. Sorry, I don't see you're problem. I only see a good way of getting a great movie list with few clicks.

The MOST important thing now though, is to getting relevant info in fullscreen and info pane, and to make a good database for movies and series

[Daydream]

Borrowing from MrHaugen's idea regarding placement I believe something like this may work better (just a crude mockup, a reset button and other things should be there too; arrows show how values change in-place)



Drop-down list... good luck navigating through multiple level unfolding drop-downs, that then keeps expanding to the right or any way that may be envisioned. Any wrong press on the remote - you have to start again.

And regarding whatever kind of navigation, if it goes more than 3 levels away from the starting point it's bad.

[rick.ca]

You are talking about a mix of todays Views and filters.

No, I'm not. Everything I'm talking about is clearly within the existing idea of a "view." I haven't said anything about how a user should make use of views to manage their data. But the existing "view" includes the ability to configure categories, which determines the "navigation" experience within any view. You've proposed a filtering mechanism in addition to this existing behaviour. I've acknowledged that would be useful, but it would conflict in significant ways with the existing navigation scheme. How do you suggest these conflicts be resolved?

I propose replacing the existing navigation behaviour (within views) with something closer to true filtering. You don't see "my problem" because I don't have one—my proposal eliminates the problems I identified. I'm not saying that in the end it would be a better approach than yours, but you haven't eliminated the same issues from your proposal.

Drop-down list... good luck navigating through multiple level unfolding drop-downs, that then keeps expanding to the right or any way that may be envisioned. Any wrong press on the remote - you have to start again.

So it seems what you're suggesting isn't a replacement for an existing navigation scheme that lists all the items in each category. There's a big difference between selecting from a list and selecting from a control that displays only one item at a time—so I don't believe you're proposing that be replaced. So how would you deal with the "coexistence" issues I raised?

And regarding whatever kind of navigation, if it goes more than 3 levels away from the starting point it's bad.

I agree it's usually "bad" for navigation, but if navigation is replaced with filtering, it's just a matter of personal preference. If selections "stick," categories are selected randomly rather than sequentially (either from the roller, or simply because you can skip through them without changing anything), and the results view can be selected at any time, then it doesn't really matter how many categories are included in the view.

But aside from the topic at hand, the idea that too many navigation level is "bad" may be useful as a guideline for the configuration of a view, but it has no relevance to the program design. There is no good reason to limit the number of levels. Some situations are going to demand, and work very well, with many levels. And there may even be a valid choice in the same circumstance. For my videos, for example, I would agree it probably makes sense to define a number of different views (e.g., movies, series, documentaries, home video, etc), and then try to have no more than three categories in each. But if I'm lazy and just want it all in one view, why not just lump all the necessary categories into that view. You can't argue it's "wrong"—it depends on the nature and number of items in the database, and personal preference.

[Daydream]

So it seems what you're suggesting isn't a replacement for an existing navigation scheme that lists all the items in each category. There's a big difference between selecting from a list and selecting from a control that displays only one item at a time—so I don't believe you're proposing that be replaced. So how would you deal with the "coexistence" issues I raised?

Yes, what I'm proposing is a whole new thing plugged somewhere in the interface. It is meant above all to prevent any movement beyond current page. Video - Movies, make your selection (by whatever aggregated, intricate criteria) on the same page, done.

I have to admit I don't quiet understand entirely your point of view, I probably have to reread some of your posts above. You do see some navigation and some places where this might take you that these things collide. I don't quiet see, but I'll try below hoping we're talking about the same things.

I'd really like to have the things I painted above somewhere in the rollers but I don't think that's gonna be the case. So let's say they are separate options somewhere on the page. If that page is a place where you got to by following the current, tree-like roller navigation - so you are not in \Movies, you are already in \Movies\[A certain genre]\[year]\etc, the in place filtering should obey that. One shouldn't be able to re-tweak Genre at that point. That choice was already made. Which will mean that the in-place filtering would have max impact when the least navigating took place (say in \Movies, when all the options are still wide open), and gradually less impact as you navigate down the thread. Should you want to navigate, since this whole thing would be in place to cut short the whole next, next, next style of narrowing down a selection.

I hope I got close to what you had in mind.

I agree it's usually "bad" for navigation, but if navigation is replaced with filtering, it's just a matter of personal preference. If selections "stick," categories are selected randomly rather than sequentially (either from the roller, or simply because you can skip through them without changing anything), and the results view can be selected at any time, then it doesn't really matter how many categories are included in the view.

Then the whole thing can be another type of using the interface, another option. I'd prefer a unified thing but... I can easily foresee we won't be able to satisfy everybody's tastes about this.

But aside from the topic at hand, the idea that too many navigation level is "bad" may be useful as a guideline for the configuration of a view, but it has no relevance to the program design. There is no good reason to limit the number of levels. Some situations are going to demand, and work very well, with many levels. And there may even be a valid choice in the same circumstance. For my videos, for example, I would agree it probably makes sense to define a number of different views (e.g., movies, series, documentaries, home video, etc), and then try to have no more than three categories in each. But if I'm lazy and just want it all in one view, why not just lump all the necessary categories into that view. You can't argue it's "wrong"—it depends on the nature and number of items in the database, and personal preference.

One definitely should have the option to pile everything together should that be his option. But otherwise - efficiency, economy in navigation. What JRiver allowed with their database - a mirriad of views, of groups, of expressions, or organizational choices, well, all that should - wait for it, it's coming - NOT be allowed to transpire into Theater view. This is not a place to become a visual melee of options just because we have them. Not in the current implementation on Theater view interface. Take my italic lines together.

Think about it. We are suggesting some changes, and in whatever shape or form they will take place - if they will - we see them as for the better. But this have to be for the better of everybody, including for Johnny Average, that visited the forum 3 times and is addicted only to press OK on his remote. That is why I'm saying simple, with economy of gestures.

Because currently I can't make a skin called "DaydreamSupreme" (super-inflated ego style ) and put whatever I deem necessary in it. And omit what I think it's not necessary. And if somebody likes it fine, use it, if they don't, go use something else, that brings different fields in, that allow some other kind of navigation.

[rick.ca]

Think about it. We are suggesting some changes, and in whatever shape or form they will take place - if they will - we see them as for the better. But this have to be for the better of everybody, including for Johnny Average, that visited the forum 3 times and is addicted only to press OK on his remote. That is why I'm saying simple, with economy of gestures.

I agree, with a qualification. Neither flexibility nor efficiency should be sacrificed for one another. Simplicity (or "elegance") exists only in the proper balance between the two. "Navigation" and "filtering" are so similar, any attempt to accommodate both as separate functions risks violating this design objective. Just because Johnny likes his remote doesn't mean he's an idiot. It's much more likely he's very good a mastering anything like this—as long as it's simple and intuitive.

I imagine most find the existing navigation reasonably simple and intuitive. Experienced users may want it to do more, but it's difficult to imagine anyone having much difficulty making it work. I'm suggesting an unobtrusive change so it serves those of us who want it to do more. But I'm not ignoring Johnny. I'm sure he will learn he can select more than one item per category, that his selections will "stick," that he does have to navigate through all the categories in order if there's no need to. And he will be able to do so at his own pace (not that he's slow, but he might be an infrequent visitor to Theater View).

Such a filtering system would serve all users well by it's flexibility. Sometimes I'm in a "filtering mood." I'll have no difficulty formulating queries that will show me exactly what I want to see. I may even do a long series of queries just to give me a "feel" for the data. In other words, my objective is to examine the data, not select one item (although I may end up doing that). At other times, I'm brain-dead on the couch with my remote. I want to select a video to watch, but I'm unable to think about what's available or how I might best find it. In that circumstance, I'm probably better off using the existing navigation method where I can make one simple choice at a time. But I would be also be able to make use of the more advanced capability at any point in the process, and that too is likely to make things easier for me. Most of the time, most of us are going to be somewhere between those two extremes. And probably not caring in the least whether we're "navigating" or "filtering"—just like Johnny.

The main point I'm making is that for the sake of simplicity and ease-of-use, some kind of unified navigating/filtering method is essential. While there are advantages to simply adapting the current approach, I'm not against something completely different. Your idea is appealing in certain circumstances, but I have difficulty imagining it being as flexible as the current method. Also, don't think I'd want to give up the advantages of being able to see all items in a category in a list—particularly one that also shows thumbnails for each item filtered according to the current selection. In some circumstances the "blind" selector of your filter would work fine. But how am I to make a selection of items when I don't know how many there are to choose from and what their nature is? And even more important—once multiple items in a category have be selected, how would I see what the selection is? With my method, selected items would be highlighted.

I'd prefer a unified thing but... I can easily foresee we won't be able to satisfy everybody's tastes about this.

I don't understand how "taste" could have much to do with it. What I've suggested wouldn't get in the way of what people are used to. It would almost be possible to completely ignore the changes and continue to navigate in the existing manner. Surely, adding unobtrusive additional functionality is not going to offend anyone's taste.

Yes, what I'm proposing is a whole new thing plugged somewhere in the interface. It is meant above all to prevent any movement beyond current page. Video - Movies, make your selection (by whatever aggregated, intricate criteria) on the same page, done.

Maybe your idea would work if it were presented as the very first "page" of a view, with an option to switch (via the second roller, I suppose) to what I'm proposing. The idea would be to use and stay at the first page—as long as is "works." The alternate method would be for those more comfortable navigating through the categories, or who need to see each category listed. Both would end up at the same place—the results page.

Clutter and confusion could be minimized by both methods being driven by the same configuration, and perhaps the option to suppress one or the other. When switching from one to the other, selections would be retained and the last selected category kept in sync. This would allow one to use your filter in confidence, knowing they can switch to the "more detailed" method (and back) whenever necessary. Without trying to think of specifics, if there would be any difference in how the two worked, I'd expect your's to be kept clean, simple and fast. Any embellishments adding key-presses, more roller items, etc. would generally be found in the other method.

[MrHaugen]

Guys. Please stop with the wall of text. My eyes hurt.

No, I'm not. Everything I'm talking about is clearly within the existing idea of a "view." I haven't said anything about how a user should make use of views to manage their data. But the existing "view" includes the ability to configure categories, which determines the "navigation" experience within any view. You've proposed a filtering mechanism in addition to this existing behaviour. I've acknowledged that would be useful, but it would conflict in significant ways with the existing navigation scheme. How do you suggest these conflicts be resolved?

I propose replacing the existing navigation behaviour (within views) with something closer to true filtering. You don't see "my problem" because I don't have one—my proposal eliminates the problems I identified. I'm not saying that in the end it would be a better approach than yours, but you haven't eliminated the same issues from your proposal.

My point is that most of the Views/categories you describe in Theater View today is Views. You set up the views in options and there it is. Static, super static views. You can make views (or call it categories if you want) that can group things in Genre, Years, Actors, Rating etc. But you'll have a hell of a time making views that combine much of the things. There will just be way to many views/categories.

There would not really be any conflicts. You have a huge list with media. You select filter, and the media within this view is filtered away depending on what genre, rating etc you choose. When you leave the view, the view is reset. There should not be any witchcraft involved here.

My illustration above is clearly to ugly to make my point. I'll try to make a better illustration later.

BTW, where the heck did the info pane go in the latest build? I've not noticed it before because I'm working with a very bad test library. You're now supposed to hit enter and go to full screen info view for every item you want to know more than the duration and name of?? WHY, oh why can't there be a way of viewing more of the common details without entering every item. For music it's worse. There it's not showing any details at all. ALL the useful space are occupied by a fancy reflection of the cover art I want info there. With the cover art in the background. Going back and forth through the views is not a good thing. Except for closer examination of Movies and lyrics imo.

[raldo]

Guys. Please stop with the wall of text. My eyes hurt.

Exactly, this thread is practically impossible to follow and to engage in.

full screen info view for every item you want to know more than the duration and name of?? WHY, oh why can't there be a way of viewing more of the common details without entering every item. For music it's worse. There it's not showing any details at all. ALL the useful space are occupied by a fancy reflection of the cover art I want info there. With the cover art in the background. Going back and forth through the views is not a good thing. Except for closer examination of Movies and lyrics imo.

I don't have anything against a new filtering feature in theater view.

BUT, I view it as an advanced feature and I think JRiver should focus on the basics first:

My list of preferences would be:
o Info AT ONCE, not after entering a view
o Configuration of displayed items

Then, filtering, full skinning, but only after the basics are in place in most of the areas of the application.

Someone was talking about "Johnny Average" above. I think it's in everyones interest that the application is as stable as possible and has a good balance of rigidity (to avoid cluttering, confusion, bugs) and configurability.

[MrHaugen]

BUT, I view it as an advanced feature and I think JRiver should focus on the basics first:

My list of preferences would be:
o Info AT ONCE, not after entering a view
o Configuration of displayed items

Bingo! My list as well. It's just so much work to jump in and out of views to see the info you need. Basics have to be in place first.

[Daydream]

Maybe your idea would work if it were presented as the very first "page" of a view, with an option to switch (via the second roller, I suppose) to what I'm proposing. The idea would be to use and stay at the first page—as long as is "works." The alternate method would be for those more comfortable navigating through the categories, or who need to see each category listed. Both would end up at the same place—the results page.

I agree. Looks like some nice common ground.

o Info AT ONCE, not after entering a view

So do I understand you right, you want the thumbnails to navigate through them, AND metadata on the same page? Assuming yes (correct me if I'm wrong) I'll take a shot at the concept:
- to be really safe (room for everything) you'll end up with one row of thumbnails and the rest of the screen metadata. It's so close to a million of similar designs that I wouldn't like it. Limited thumbnails browsing notwithstanding.
- to be... challenging: 2 rows of thumbnails and the rest metadata. I've actually draw a mockup of this, I just don't have it with me. The thumbnails would need to be shrunk a bit, also the text size, to various degree (a certain size for titles, another size for metadata). Would that be acceptable?
- do you guys watch this on a TV, or just on your 24" screens? (just curious) It's not the same thing.

Basics have to be in place first.

Just so you know from where I'm coming, I don't buy into the policy of small steps.

[rick.ca]

o Info AT ONCE, not after entering a view

Even after Daydream's noble attempt to interpret this cryptic comment, I still haven't a clue what it means. What info at once? Doesn't there have to be some method of selecting the media records you want information about? Isn't that the discussion this topic was pirated for? I don't suppose you'd be willing to translate this into a "wall of text" so I might understand. 

[MrHaugen]

Here's half a wall of text

Info at once
A few builds ago we had a Info pane that would just appear with a lot of useless tags after we pressed Enter button on a video. The info pane would shrink the Cover art and display Cover art AND tags, instead of just the Cover art and a ridiculous wast of space for a mirror image of that Cover art.
What we want is a way of showing RELEVANT info in the info pane without having to hit enter for every single movie. In other words, on item select. We do not need a Cover art that fills half of the screen, we need usefull info to be presented with as large as possible Cover art. Reflectations of Cover art can actually be in the background of tag text.

When we want even more info about a movie or series then you hit enter and you get the fullscreen info page. I can't imagine going to hit enter to get something usefull all the time. When something catches my interrest I might though.

Sceen space should NOT be a problem if you don't have a problem today. This changes nothing. It's just a way to make the info pane usefull.

Configuration
By configuration of the info view we mean that we want to be able to control what is shown in the info pane, what order, and the same goes for the Full screen view really.

[raldo]

What info at once?

Well, like it is in MC14.0.19 , basically. You enter a view scheme and a movie is selected. On the right side of the screen, meta data is displayed. When you move to another movie, the metadata changes accordingly.

I agree with MrHaugen that music also should behave that way.

For me, the current order of metadata is fine (description, actors), but I can totally see that the order/content etc should be configurable.

Just so you know from where I'm coming, I don't buy into the policy of small steps.

So you're not into Darwin at all? Just kidding.

[MrHaugen]

Crap. Have I missed a build on one of my "test" machines? If the info updates on the fly then I'm satisfied.... If it does the same for other media types as well. I still miss the configuration though. But I think J river are up to something here.

*Edit*
No, I had the 19 build, but I had just a few poor video samles with next to no tag info. My bad. This is a step in the right direction.

[Daydream]

I was just about to ask "how's that different than current config?"

Totally agree that the metadata items and their order should be configurable. I'm especially troubled with the Actors field. I want the field. But as we filled it practically with the entire cast, it's an interminable line of text, not just the main leads. Thoughts? Will it work better as a collapsible field? Or (automatic) scrolling? (movement might be distracting).

I don't know what JRiver devs are up to. Usually they're up to dropping no comments on threads like this. Not them, not anybody from the beta team... what the heck are we talking about here?!?

[raldo]

[...] deeply inheriting the functionality of the standard view. That is the direct effect of MC exposing so much power

I agree, isn't filtering one of the strengths of standard view? And one of the strengths of the pre defined views in theater view?

I have a whole bunch of views configured and when there are special things I want to explore, I revert to standard view on the small screen.

I too don't understand what happens when you select a movie in theater view in 14.0.19. I am unable to scroll the view using my remote, and there are a couple of scrollers I cannot get access to.

[rick.ca]

Have I missed a build on one of my "test" machines?

That might explain why I didn't understand what you were talking about.

I agree relevant information information about the selected item should be displayed in the file list. And overlaying such information on the thumbnail mirror image is a sensible way to do so. It should be the same for all media types (currently, it seems to be done for video only). An most important of all—it must be fully configurable.

So it seems we're all in agreement on that one. The problem is, it's not what Daydream and I were discussing. We were talking about the "pages" of any view that have to be navigated through to get to the file list. Yes, I understand those only exist if I add categories to the view (in the configuration). But that's what we want—the means to navigate to/select/filter the items in a view based on categories. The only alternative would be to create a large number of different views, each of which would present a subset of the database that would be comfortable to browse. This is clearly impractical, and if I understood you correctly, one of the very notions you were objecting to.

[MrHaugen]

After I figured out I had not been testing as much as I should, I belive I misunderstood you're "list" Raldo. If you were thinking of info at once in the full screen view, I do follow you now.
There are similar applications that have one line of small cover art to brows through, and still have lots of space for all the info you want for the movie. I think this is something that we need in MC too, but there are a few things that have to be in place first imo. First of all, some sort of filtering should be in place, so you can actually brows the videos you want, and not go through hundreds you have allready seen or that are of a diffrent genre that you want to see. When this is in place, a function like this would be awsome.

I would then use full screen info view for Videos and series, details list and info pane for music

That might explain why I didn't understand what you were talking about.

I agree relevant information information about the selected item should be displayed in the file list. And overlaying such information on the thumbnail mirror image is a sensible way to do so. It should be the same for all media types (currently, it seems to be done for video only). An most important of all—it must be fully configurable.

So it seems we're all in agreement on that one. The problem is, it's not what Daydream and I were discussing. We were talking about the "pages" of any view that have to be navigated through to get to the file list. Yes, I understand those only exist if I add categories to the view (in the configuration). But that's what we want—the means to navigate to/select/filter the items in a view based on categories. The only alternative would be to create a large number of different views, each of which would present a subset of the database that would be comfortable to browse. This is clearly impractical, and if I understood you correctly, one of the very notions you were objecting to.

It's the same thing I want basicly. Haven't you read my posts about the filtering? In the end I'd like a system to reduce the items in a view to a manageable amount, so we can use more time looking at details of movies we want see. In other words, filtering content.
I don't think it would be hard work in the terms of additional code. You'd just use todays smartlist engine to set some pre defined rules based on the tag data, and a way to easily select genre, rating, actors etc. The problem is to figure out where to place it. As I said earilier, I think the perfect place would be todays info pane.

[rick.ca]

I don't know what JRiver devs are up to. Usually they're up to dropping no comments on threads like this. Not them, not anybody from the beta team... what the heck are we talking about here?!?

You are protected by my impenetrable "wall of words"—allowing you to be creative without the annoying limitations developers always bring to these conversations. 

Seriously, though, the fact it takes so long to do things that seem so simple and obvious—like making the fields completely configurable—suggests they may be on a different path. That's a bit worrisome, as I can't imagine any other approach that (for me, at least) wouldn't be completely useless.

I'm especially troubled with the Actors field. I want the field. But as we filled it practically with the entire cast, it's an interminable line of text, not just the main leads. Thoughts? Will it work better as a collapsible field? Or (automatic) scrolling? (movement might be distracting).

Although there are more elegant ways to deal with this, I've always advocated a reasonable starting point is to simply put everything into one scrollable "page"—as they have done. This avoids any impediments to the fields being completely configurable, and complications in navigating the information. Scrolling might be annoying in some cases, but at least it's easy and it works. In any case, I don't think it helps matters to add additional key presses to do things like expand/collapse one field at a time. One thing I found works very well in Personal Video Database is a shortcut (programmed to my remote) to simple expand/collapse all fields at once. It seems very simplistic, but I find that's all I want to do when I'm browsing such information. I'm not inclined to think about "expand this, collapse that"—I need something much faster and "mindless" than that.

[Daydream]

There are similar applications that have one line of small cover art to brows through, and still have lots of space for all the info you want for the movie.

Hehe... hehehe . You probably saw my comment above about "one line of thumbs, rest is metadata". At the risk of venturing into a not so scientific direction, there is always the "feel" of the interface. For one line thumbs we have coverflow in iTunes, same coverflow plus coverflow with items following straight after each other in line (no overlapping) in XBMC (did I just... whatever ) in probably various style depending on its skins and so on; I can probably come up with another 2-5 popular program names that do that. Sooooo... not too original.

Second thing, more practical. Where are we coming from? MC, standard view. Filtering - power options galore. We can't have so minutia elements in Theater View 'cause there's no space. We have to come up with some creative ideas to navigate / filter (long discussions above). Let's say we get to the point where we navigate/filter as we want. The result of that is, let's say, 34 items, be it movies, songs, whatever. What's the expectation coming from Standard view? Everything on screen, bang-on, front and center. What's gonna happen with one row of thumbnails? Scroll 4-5 times to see them all. I'm already hearing the screams of frustration.

It means the result of a power feature that does so much in such less time, will be a thing that requires lengthy browsing (left-right or up-down or whatever). That's why I will never go bellow two rows of thumbs, and even that I'm not sure is doable. I did (do) use other media center programs, and I'm constantly feeling that I'm coming short in some regard. They expose metadata very nicely but you feel lost in your collection, not so much perspective of exactly where you are.

[rick.ca]

You'd just use todays smartlist engine to set some pre defined rules based on the tag data, and a way to easily select genre, rating, actors etc.

I don't know if this is your intent, but these words seem to describe something that wouldn't come close to what I need. I can't predict the form of query I may want to use. I'm prepared to accept I must select a particular view which will determine the categories I'm able to filter. So I'll configure a set of views that will suit my particular needs and preferences. But I expect the filtering aspect of that to be configurable—not at all "predefined." And then it needs to remain flexible in use. In a sense, I need to be able to "tweak" and "configure" the filter while in the view. I'm not trying to describe anything unusual or complicated—this is how filtering works in most modern applications. I'm sure most users find it familiar and intuitive.

I hope you're able to see what I'm attempting to describe is something that would satisfy the broadest possible range of needs and preferences. It seems rather obvious, for example, your preferences are quite different from mine. 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.

I'm already hearing the screams of frustration.

Sorry—must have left my mike on.

[Daydream]

Guys, this concurrent forum posting thing is not working. Can we have a conference call?

[darichman]

To be honest, I'm just playing the waiting game for a bit to see how things pan out. Every few builds has a few small changes to the info panel, so things seem to be taking shape. It's still not configurable, but Jim has said in several recent posts that it will be 'somewhat configurable'... so most people should find a setup which suits (hopefully!)

I think some form of filtering might work - as long as it were quick and simple. As you guys have said, the only real way to filter now is by making different views across the navigational hierarchy. The more categories you have the more 'rolling' you need to do. A small popup box with some useful filters could simplify things a lot.

[datdude]

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

Yes

[rick.ca]

I think some form of filtering might work - as long as it were quick and simple.

...and relational!

But seriously, "quick and simple" are obviously desirable goals, but they shouldn't be imposed as barriers to the idea being discussed here. We're looking for a solution for something that's already slow and cumbersome.