Print

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

[MusicHawk]

I really appreciate the effort to improve MC's UI while also retaining classic capabilities. I'm trying to learn to like and use the new mode, so to test .136 I dove into another batch of reviewing hundreds of recordings, listening, tagging, re-tagging. Some (unfortunately negative) feedback:

Good: Keyboard navigation is much more natural. I haven't found a trap where I can't proceed normally. However, it sometimes takes extra keystrokes, so I have to watch the screen more carefully to be sure I moved, or didn't, and where I am now.

Bad: I still find the Suggestions list to be intrusive, non-intuitive, and inefficient. I wish the whole suggestions/sublist behavior could be controlled at the field level (some fields benefit, some do not), or activated while in a field when desired (via hot-key), or worst-case totally disabled throughout MC.


Detailed example of when the new system makes a fast editing step very slow and clunky:

I have a custom field Chart that I used to tag songs based on how they placed on various Billboard charts. The single field's master list values have a prefix identifying the chart, then the chart position. PP#1 is Pop chart position #1. CW#32 is Country-Western chart position #32. RB#108 is, well, R&B #108. Etc. A given song might have one chart value, or multiple (some songs ranked on multiple charts), or none. So the Chart field is multi-value-list type. The master list has several hundred values.

There is NO way for MC to predict/search and therefore usefully suggest the chart number I need to assign to any particular song.


In .122 and before, I could click into the field and see the entire list. I use the height-expanded list in the left-column tree (not pane or view) because it can show me a very long list all in one place. I can quickly jump to and select the desired value using my scroll wheel, and/or typing the first letter of the chart (P, C, R, etc) then scrolling from there. It's very fast to do, considering the list contains hundreds of values. It's fast to select multiple values, fast to correct a mistake, and totally keyboard-centric.

In contrast, the new suggestion method simply adds steps with no value to my task. When I enter the empty field, MC shows nothing until I start to type. Per-design, MC requires that I type 3 letters to get anything to show (PP#, etc). MC then pops up PP#1, PP#2, PP#3. But my library's PP values range from PP#1 to PP#135, so MC's suggestions are mostly not useful. I can keep typing to get MC's suggestions to be more relevant, but by then I've typed the entire value so there's no need for the list at all.

I discovered that if I type just 1 or 2 letters, then press Down-Arrow, MC opens the list and jumps to that position. (Type "R", Down-Arrow, opens the list at "RB#1"). BUT -- it puts this value at the BOTTOM of the scroll window, not at the top where it would be truly helpful. So immediately I have to scroll the list.

OR, if instead I click MC's offer to "See the first 100 suggestions", that helps -- if what I want is PP#1 to PP#100, but I don't see PP#101 to PP#135. MC truncates the list!

OR, if I click the down-arrow, I see the entire list but I'm back at the top (AC#1) -- with no benefit from the PP# I already typed. (Lots of typing/clicking to this point yet still not at the desired data value.)

OR, if when I first open the list (cursor in Add field) I type some text, then press Down-Arrow, the full list sometimes opens and I jump to matching text. OR I get the suggestions list with something that sort-of matches. This seems to depend on whether what I type is a full value in the list, or not. And this only works if I type 3 letters in the Add field. Or hit down arrow again (and again?). But if seeing the full list and jumping to a value requires that I first type the entire value, what's the point of opening the list? It's all very mysterious.


BUG? -- the displayed "entire list" is SHORT -- it does not fill the vertical space. In .122 and prior, a list of values used all the available left-column space, so I regularly Maximized the Tag action window to full height to get this benefit. But now, MC ignores the maximized window size and seems to show just 25 items, using about half the vertical space available on my screen. So I must scroll twice as much to get to lower-listed values. (Also, it would be a help if the Maximize state could be remembered. I often close the Tag window to view and navigate the tree, and would prefer that when I reopen the Tag window it is still maximized, or not, whatever size I last selected.)


Also, MC changes how it helps me navigate, in a confusing way. Once I've clicked the arrow to show the full list (in a smallish dialog), I'm back at the top. The Add/search field seems to have focus -- it has a flashing cursor -- but typing does nothing in this field. Instead, once the down-arrow displays the full list, MC will jump through it based on typing a value ("C" jumps to the start of the "CW" values). This behavior was discovered, not obvious. AND -- the jump based on typing a value works only for the first key. "C" jumps to the "CW" section of my list, but typing "CW#1" does not further refine the selection. If the list has values beginning with "RB" and "RR", I can jump to "RB" but not "RR".

Another odd discovered behavior. While I can't type "RR" to jump there (MC goes to "RB" and stays there), if I try, by typing "R" or "RR" repeatedly, MC periodically scrolls ONE item lower in the list. Not always, or at least, not promptly. Probably not intended behavior, just odd.


Then... After I get to the desired value in the list, selecting it seems to require pressing Enter twice -- first to put the value into the Add field, second to add the value to the selected values. Apparently this is intended changed behavior.


LOST: I haven't found a way to select multiple values in one step, action that is necessary in many of my fields (Chart, Artists, Composers, Keywords...) The old system provided a check box by every value, to be clicked or selected by Spacebar. I could see the entire list, move around the list, click the boxes and/or press the Spacebar to select any quantity of values -- very fast. Then I could move out of the field with exactly the desired result. NOW, the apparent way to select from the full list is to click an item, which immediately closes the list, which then must be re-opened using various means to select a second item, etc. Really slow.


Another slow-down is that so many pieces of the process are in separate little chunks, so there's no longer a unified way to see all the available values, see what has already been selected, unselect, reselect, add/change, whatever, in one straightforward list. Say I click RB#12 when I meant RB#13 -- finger slipped, oops. In the old system, I'd simply uncheck RB#12 and then check RB#13, while in the full list. OR, I'd see the full set of selected values displayed by MC as semi-colon-delimited list, and I could simply edit "2" to "3". NOW, I have to go through all the steps to open the list, get to RB#13, select it, close the list, THEN in the list of selected values shown by MC, uncheck RB#12. Apparently it's no longer possible to directly edit the field's current values list -- which I do all the time to correct data variances.

UPDATE: I stumbled upon having all the list-field items displayed in the single Add field so I could do a simple edit -- but I haven't found a way to invoke this mode again. UPDATE #2: Found it. If I open the list and select a value, then Enter, it gets put into the Add field. THEN I can edit the field, including add a semi-colon and another item. I wonder if this obscure way to get to a useful ability is intentional or a holdover from the older behavior.

And... I have often found it helpful to copy (Ctrl+C) a value that exists in a list-type field, to paste it elsewhere. But since I haven't found ANY way to directly access this data as simple text, I can't seem to copy it. In .122 and previous this was easy -- just select the value in the edit field that appeared at the top of the selection list. Now, possibly it is impossible.


Of course, updating a list-type field can be done, but now it requires many more steps. It's gone from elegant to complex. After using .136 for an hour, trying to focus on the job to see if it can be efficient, I realize I'm primarily typing full values that already exist because it is faster than taking the steps to locate values in lists.

Repeating my editorial comment: I'm not seeing any of this as improvements. Perhaps I don't understand the question: What MC weakness are the changes attempting to answer? Why does a updating a private database need forced suggestions?

Repeating my suggestion: Implicit searching, suggestions and sublists are undoubtedly useful in some situations, but not in all situations. PLEASE make the new behavior optional, or secondary to the basic editing behavior that used to exist.

[rjm]

I haven't found a way to select multiple values in one step, a mode that used to be very helpful. The old system provided check boxes, and allowed selection by Spacebar. I could see the entire list, move around the list, click the boxes and/or press the Spacebar to select any quantity of values -- very fast. Then I could move out of the field with exactly the desired result. NOW, the apparent way to select from the full list is to click an item, which immediately closes the list, which then must be re-opened using various means to select a second item, etc. Really slow.

This is the biggest hit to my productivity. Adding n list items now requires 4*n actions versus 2*n actions for pre-122. It seems to me that it should be possible to reinstate the check boxes and multiple selections while retaining the new features that many seem to appreciate.

[rick.ca]

Repeating my editorial comment: I'm not seeing any of this as improvements. Perhaps I don't understand the question: What MC weakness are the changes attempting to answer? Why does a updating a private database need forced suggestions?

I suppose all of your observations are intended to support this conclusion (and your questions are rhetorical, because they've been answered before). But, thanks to your meticulous descriptions, it seems clear they all fit in one of three categories:

• You've identified some behaviour that could easily be changed, for a significant improvement in usability and efficiency. The fact it has not been implemented prior to your recommendation proves only that the development team is not clairvoyant. There are a number things you've mentioned about how the list is displayed, placing the closest match at the top of the list, etc. that, if implemented, would make selecting an item as efficient as your old method.
  
  
• The issue is valid, but will no longer be relevant when the items in (1) are rectified. For example, it items can be selected rapidly from the list, there's little need for check boxes in the list. Selected values appear in the data list with check boxes, where they can be changed or deselected. With the suggestion system working very well in most circumstances, and backed up by a better behaving list, the fact items have to be selected one-at-time becomes a non-issue. The only time the old check-boxes-on-the-list is going to be more efficient is where the multiple values to be selected are all visible on the list at the same time. If that's the case and that's all you're doing in the edit session, then pane-tagging would be a better method to use.
  
  
• You're expecting the system to work in way that it doesn't or you haven't yet learned how it does do something. I appreciate you're trying to argue the system is too complicated or unnecessarily confusing. But to the extent these are things that are fairly obvious once learned and used, the argument doesn't stand. For example, it is possible to select an item from the list (press <Enter> to get into the edit box), select it an copy it to the clipboard. Any of the items in the data list may be selected and "renamed" or copied. Or it can be opened in the text editor where you can do whatever you want. I'm sure there could be improvements to how these functions are invoked, but they haven't been lost in the new system.
  

[Gl3nn]

Some documentation/explanation on how this is supposed to work would be nice.  I can't figure-out why it does what it does, like simply moving from one field to another in finalized records.  In some cases a list will automatically drop down and in others, not... for the same field in different records.  I don't get it... and, again, I would *greatly* prefer it if NOTHING would open anywhere automatically.  Please give up a simple option to turn off this "selection list automatically opens" feature unless we want it.

[lepa]

Could Episode field be excluded from the suggestion machine. It doesn't help at all and setting especially 1 & 2 ep numbers and moving on to next line made complicated.

Of course auto numbering episode field just like track# would be great.

[vagskal]

Some documentation/explanation on how this is supposed to work would be nice.

I cannot stress enough the importance of at least some basic documentation of all features actually available in MC. I constantly feel that I am missing out of some very useful features just because I cannot figure out how things work and what keyboard short-cuts and drag and drop features etc. are available and how they are supposed to work. And it is difficult to report a bug if you do not know what the intended behaviour is... I even have difficulties understanding what JRiver and "civilian" posters mean sometimes because I feel that the terminology/concepts are not consistent and stringent enough. The brief release notes are simply not enough for me to always understand. (I realise that this might tell more about me and my capabilities - including my understanding of the English language - than about JRiver.)

So far the JRiver experience has, for me, been one of constant revelations occurring mostly by pure serendipity due to some knowledgeable poster on the forums that addressed some issue and used a language (terminology/concepts) I happened to understand. I do not do computer games, but sometimes it feels like getting the most out of MC is like playing a puzzle game that never gets solved due to clever riddles as well as constant change, or evolution...

Sorry for being off-topic, but I could not resist. And please do not misunderstand: I would not prefer documentation over development, I just want/need some more documentation to take advantage of the development, and the existing features.

PS. Thanks again Marko for undertaking and carrying through the herculean task of documenting the (current state of the) expression language!

[JimH]

I'm going to lock this now.

If you have something specific, please start a thread using a title that describes the specific issue.