Print

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

[stricko]

When you create a view / pane, the first listed value at each level always seems to be "All" values. For example I created a theater view list with an expression grouping items together. (After much experimentation) I get the groupings that I want, but the first item is "All Expression (n)". Not very meaningful.

I know that sometimes this feature can be very useful, and I wouldn't want to lose the capability, but is there any way of switching it off for a specific view, query etc.

[MrHaugen]

Same here. I'd like a way to turn it on or off in the Theater View View option window. Most of the time I don't need it at all. Before we had the fast View switching in Theater View, is was pretty important. Now I only find my self using it on Music when I browse by Genre and I don't remember in which genre an artist is. But it would be just as simple so change the view to Artist View instead.

[stricko]

Given that nobody seems to know a way of doing this, can we make a feature request for the "All" value to be optional for each query / level, probably on the category screen.

Thanks

[darichman]

I agree it just doesn't fit properly in some views. It would be nice to have it configurable on a per-view basis. Or perhaps it could be incorporated into the roller somehow?

[stricko]

I was half hoping that this might appear in v61, but I can't find any reference to it.

Is it on the radar for a future release?

[hit_ny]

I agree it just doesn't fit properly in some views. It would be nice to have it configurable on a per-view basis. Or perhaps it could be incorporated into the roller somehow?

I've been thinking the same thing for a while but more wrt view schemes than Theatre view, especially ones that display the whole library.

I've always found it strange how when you enter such a view scheme that it displays everything FIRST in the files view when really,  what you want is to select something specific from the panes. The full dump in the files view, seemingy a redundant first step.

So why does MC do it this way ?

I thought it might have something to do with caching, as MC gets everything associated and then when you prune its faster as its only grabbing a subset out of  the initial result set. But this really depends on how many panes you have. So if you select an item from a pane or two, the time to display the result is similar to the view scheme initially displaying everything when initially selected.

I thought an optional (All) might make initial display of the view scheme quicker as presumably the files list below would be empty, you would then select whatever from the panes and get the result.

...but got shot down when i suggested the idea a while back

By no means is anyone suggesting this become the default for viewschemes but an option in certain situations.

[stricko]

No sign of this at r65. Is it on the radar for a future release.............

[rick.ca]

You keep asking for this as if Theater View is broken without it. I thought I understood this correctly as a rather minor personal preference thing, but now I wonder if I'm missing something...

It seems to me an option to suppress the "All" grouping would only be applicable in the case where the view includes one and only one category. If there are no categories, it's not applicable—it goes directly to the file list. If there are two or more categories, you need the ability to select "All" of one or more categories. But even in the case where there is only one category, eliminating the "All" grouping is of dubious value. To want the option suggests there must be another view that would display all files in the list. If so, why not just eliminate that instead? So, for example, instead of views for All, Genre, Artist..., eliminate All, and use Genre - All to get all files.

Even if that's not the issue, before eliminating the "All" grouping, I would consider whether any Rules for file display might be applied to the view so that a selection of "All" would still be useful or relevant. For example, I could have a view for Year (perhaps grouped by decade) which is sorted by year. In this case, "All" would give me the means to display all items by year—something probably not available in other views. I just set up such a view for my movies. "All" (rather than selecting a decade) is clearly the best way to see the relatively small number of movies I have from before 1940. Just a further illustration of my point—while the normal use of a view might be to pick a specific grouping, there are a variety of different (and perhaps unpredictable) circumstances where "All" might be necessary and useful.

I have no objection to the option being provided, and might even use it myself. Now that I've thought about it, I might appreciate more the option to move "All" to the bottom of the list—to better reflect it's use in some views as the exception rather than the rule. I still wonder if I'm missing something—that the circumstances causing you to ask for this are something I haven't even considered.

[glynor]

Didn't they do this once before and then take it back out?  I don't remember why.

I, personally, need the (All) option.  So whatever, so long as it is optional and not switched the other way permanently.

[stricko]

It's a personal thing, very much driven from a Theatre View perspective. To be honest, I don't use standard view, except as a means of querying and tidying up data that looks odd from within Theatre View. I use MC on a media PC in my lounge, no keyboard, no mouse, nothing except a screen and a remote, and the setup is designed to be used as simply as possible by my wife, my kids and myself. MC is a superb tool, but at times, it still looks and feels like it has come from a "techie" background. Being a lifelong techie myself, I have no problem with this, but, in Theatre View, I think the set-up should be as configurable as possible to give a real user friendly experience, and sometimes "techie" stuff gets in the way of this. It's the swan principle, sleek smooth and beautiful above the water, paddling furiously underneath.  It's tough to give a sensible answer when you've just added a neat new query, and someone asks "what does All Expressions mean?"

I agree absolutely that in some queries, the All option is a valuable, sometimes essential feature. But at other times, it looks clunky and redundant. I don't think that MC is broken at all, I'm merely offering a suggestion that some users might find useful, some of the time. I have no interest whatsover in all of the work being done around TV in the product, but I understand its value.  I keep raising the point because I'm getting no feedback as to whether it is being considered for the future or not. If Jim or someone says, nice idea but we're not going to do it, then fine, I'll drop it, but I think it would help make MC even more of an MCE killer than it already is.

I agree that it some cases the All option would look better at the bottem/end of a query.

 

 

[gappie]

It's tough to give a sensible answer when you've just added a neat new query, and someone asks  "what does All Expressions mean?" 

maybe: "i forgot to give the expression a sensible name"  .

 
gab

[stricko]

Now you see, I've learnt something today. I didn't even know you could give an expression a name. Many thanks 

[MrHaugen]

Simply add a "Show ALL section in view" check box next to all items in Theater View options? That way you can remove it from views where it's not necessary, and add it where it is. Would look so much cleaner without the All option...

[rick.ca]

Simply add a "Show ALL section in view" check box next to all items in Theater View options?

Assuming the Theater View options section doesn't otherwise change, it would have to go in the Category dialog (i.e., select an item in Details and Edit) under "Settings." I have no idea whether it's a design or programming issue, but I note that dialog is identical to that in Standard View—where the option is not applicable.

[stricko]

It's been a while, and several releases so I thought I give this a little bump.

And no, there's nothing "wrong" with the current functionality, but I reckon it would be "better" if it had this additional flexibility.