Print

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

[rjm]

First item in a category list should be "All".

Without this have to use some really ugly view design work-arounds for Gizmo and JRemote.

[MrHaugen]

All does not use "All". So, no. It's not a given it should be there. I suppose you can add it to the views, can't you? You can with theater views.

[rjm]

All does not use "All". So, no. It's not a given it should be there. I suppose you can add it to the views, can't you? You can with theater views.

I don't see how to do this. When I add field Genre to a pane in standard view, the first item in the pane is "All Genres". I think categories in Gizmo views should behave exactly the same. Without this we have to create many redundant views to permit navigation by different criteria.

[MrHaugen]

There is little reason why you have to see the value of dropping this. It's enough to know that some people never use it, and think it's a waste of space.
As I said, you can remove and add the all items in theater views, so you can probably do the same for the Gizmo views? I have not checked as I've never used this (yet), but it's worth a shot at least.

*Edit*

Let me add the reason why I don't think it should be there as a default. Because no other apps have an approach like this. All apps I've seen have a strict category based hierarchy. And people gets VERY easily confused by this item and it's function. 100% of my guests have had trouble figuring out what the heck it does (about 25-30 that have used Theater View). 80% of them never uses the All item, and those that does, scratches their heads and asks me how to get back to the artist view. Or something like that....

[gvanbrunt]

I agree it is confusing for many when navigating in Theater View so JRiver removed it. However there is an option to add it back under Theater View if you want it:



That can't be done with WebGizmo etc and is an oversight. Some people do use this and it should be there for consistency.

[rjm]

All apps I've seen have a strict category based hierarchy. And people gets VERY easily confused by this item and it's function. 100% of my guests have had trouble figuring out what the heck it does (about 25-30 that have used Theater View). 80% of them never uses the All item, and those that does, scratches their heads and asks me how to get back to the artist view. Or something like that....

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I would guess that the most commonly used app with a hierarchical navigation scheme is the App Store. If you do a search in the App Store you will see a set of hierarchical filters, each of which can be disabled by selecting "All".

No problem if this is an option that must be turned on but we definately need it.

[gvanbrunt]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

I think MrHaugen does know what you are requesting. However he is correct about it being confusing for some people. I've watched guests struggle to navigate Theater View with it on. Since it was removed, I don't see issues anymore. I think he is concerned that it should not be a default option. I agree with that, but since I also use "all" views I would like to have it as an option.

[rjm]

Thanks. I do not use Theater view so I have not experienced the confusion.

I did spend 5 hours yesterday configuring JRemote views so they work as nicely as my standard views and I experienced a lot of frustration by not having an "All" option. My final design is a mess with work-arounds.

[rick.ca]

I agree it is confusing for many when navigating in Theater View so JRiver removed it. However there is an option to add it back under Theater View if you want it:

Sorry to nitpick, but characterizing the matter this way is not helpful. It's true the 'All' item was confusing some, but it's inclusion is perfectly logical. It's essential in any view in which one may want to "skip" a category. And if that's the case, obviously the 'All' value should be at the top of the list and selected by default. The option to remove it (and that's what it is—the 'All' item is still included by default) was added to appease those using simple views in which it which selecting 'All' is illogical or unnecessary. Although such views may be common for some users, they're actually a small minority of all the types that might be used. Suggesting it was a flaw that was creating confusion and was "added back" as an option for the deluded few who wanted it doesn't help anyone understand the design properly. While I don't use Gizmo, I'm sure the same applies there.

First item in a category list should be "All".

You're right. If it's not there, it must be a bug. No doubt some will want the option to remove it where it's not necessary, but that's not nearly as important as it being there in the first place.

Let me add the reason why I don't think it should be there as a default. Because no other apps have an approach like this. All apps I've seen have a strict category based hierarchy...

Thankfully, MC is not the sort of app which arbitrarily curtails it's functionality to appease those who choose to be confused about that which is perfectly straightforward. If you've included categories like [Genre] or [Year], what could possibly be confusing about the choice of 'All Genres' or 'All Years'? What value is there in eliminating what could very well be perfectly sensible (and possibly very common) choices? Do you really tell your visitors, "Sorry, you have to choose ONE year. If you don't know what year the movie your looking for was released in, tough. You'll have to browse them one-by-one."

[MrHaugen]

What my visitors don't get is why they would select ALL artists, or ALL albums, or ALL Genres when they only want one. It's not logical before you actually know what it's for. And it takes couple of clicks for them to figure that out. What you expect at the next level. That's why I say it's not intuitive for me, and probably not for new users.
Once you know how it works it's perfectly logical, and it gives users another option browsing their media. All I'm saying is that this is not common practice in other apps, and adding it might frighten more away that you gain by having it there by default. MC is super flexible, but it's complexity and learning curve scares some people away. Leaving such things as "All" items off by default makes it more new user friendly imo. Small things can matter.

You're saying that the users that use simple views that does not require the All item is a small group. I would say that it's the exact opposite. Most users use Stock views or simple additions to this. I would bet my finger on it.


I am however surprised that this item is not added as an option in other views like Webgizmo. I can see the use of it for certain user types. This should be an option on all platforms in my opinion. I'm just against having it on as default

[gvanbrunt]

Sorry to nitpick, but characterizing the matter this way is not helpful.

What is not helpful is your usual dismissal of anyone's opinions that differ from your own. Often telling them they are wrong etc. There was a thread way back when when this exact issue was discussed. The outcome was the way Theater View is now. You may feel differently and this is fine - that is your opinion. I'm just stating why things are the way they are now in Theater View as far as I know. Somehow you find that offensive.

Thankfully, MC is not the sort of app which arbitrarily curtails it's functionality to appease those who choose to be confused about that which is perfectly straightforward.

Again with the disparaging remarks about others that don't share your view. I for one am really getting sick of seeing your attitude in thread after thread. The forums here used to be a place to discuss ones ideas without fear of mockery or rude rebuttals. Is it that hard for you to be polite?

Suggesting it was a flaw that was creating confusion and was "added back" as an option for the deluded few who wanted it

Gee I guess I'm one of the deluded few then? Did you read that fact that I used them?

I sure hope somebody at JRiver stops this behavior before the forms turn into Hydrogenaudio etc. I'm pretty sure they will see a lot of users leave if this continues.

[rick.ca]

Unlike this personal attack, I was commenting on what you said. It had nothing to do with opinion. What you said was incorrect and potentially misleading, especially had this thread been moved to the general board. I fail to see how you can misconstrue, "Sorry to nitpick..." followed by a careful explanation of the issue (which I stand by). It seems you're not asking me to be polite, but voicing your desire that I shut up and not dare say anything that might contradict you. I find that far more offensive than any lack of politeness on my part.

[gvanbrunt]

desire that I shut up and not dare say anything that might contradict you.

On the contrary. I have often said on other threads that I liked many of your ideas, for example your ideas concerning meta data etc. I enjoy discussing things as others idea's often lead to new insights or a better way of doing things. In your case you have a tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with you as wrong - even if it is an opinion. That aside many of  your ideas are great and do contribute to improving the product.

However your tone comes across as demeaning and impolite. It isn't what you say, it is how you say it. Perhaps it is not intentional - things often get misread in forums. If not then my apologies.

[JustinChase]

Unlike this personal attack, I was commenting on what you said.

You quoted him correctly as saying..

I agree it is confusing for many when navigating in Theater View...

Then replied...

Sorry to nitpick, but characterizing the matter this way is not helpful. It's true the 'All' item was confusing some, but...

Characterizing "the matter" in what way?  confusing?  You agreed it's confusing.  The next sentence you write is in total agreement with what you quoted him saying, except for a somewhat softer superlative (some people vs. many people)  How is that difference in characterization of a persons level of confusion "not helpful"?  To whom is it "not helpful"?

What you said was incorrect and potentially misleading, especially had this thread been moved to the general board.

How is the difference between many and some "incorrect" or "potentially misleading", and in what way would that be increased by moving to the main board?  Are they even dumber over there?

I fail to see how you can misconstrue, "Sorry to nitpick..." followed by a careful explanation of the issue (which I stand by).

It's the equivalent of telling him "Sorry to tell you, you're totally wrong, and you almost confused everyone else but me, so I'll just correct you now, so that everyone isn't confused by your error" then restating almost verbatim what he had just said.  The implication being he was some kind of idiot because he used different words than you did to say basically the same thing.

He, then you both said 'The 'All' item is confusing people to some degree.'  Then you go on to state "obviously the 'All' value should be at the top of the list and selected by default."

Why should something agreed to be confusing "obviously...be...selected by default", as you state; again implying how stupid he was to have missed the "obvious"?  It seems to me that something which is generally agreed to be confusing should NOT be the default behavior?  It would then stand to reason that the option should actually be to "add it back" not "remove" it.

You then continue on in your explanation to state that it's inclusion is "perfectly logical", insinuating he was illogical, yet he never said it shouldn't be inlcuded, he instead said the opposite, with which you seem to agree actually. 

You continue to nitpick about the option being a "remove" option instead of an option to "add it back", as if the difference is of the utmost importance, and he's so far off base to have not used the 'proper' term, as you felt the need to correct it. 

Then you continue to say it "was added to appease those using simple views in which it which selecting 'All' is illogical or unnecessary" as if "those using" these "simple views" (probably the stock views most users never change) were just whining until they were thrown a bone of appeasement. 

You then state these "simple views" are "actually a small minority of all the types that might be used", again implying that it was a waste because of what "might be used", likely referring to the 100+ views you've created for yourself.  Just because many view might be created, does not mean care should not be/have been taken to avoid confusion for users that have not created "all the types" you, and others have.

You then continue to state that he

Suggest(ed) it was a flaw that was creating confusion and was "added back" as an option for the deluded few who wanted it doesn't help anyone understand the design properly.

But you yourself state that it causes confusion, then referred to some "deluded few who wanted it" of which he is one, as are you I think, and that his characterization of the 'flaw' as affecting "many" somehow confuses everyone "about the proper design."  Why is your opinion of "proper" the only valid opinion?  Not to mention he never said anything like what you are trying to attribute to him there.

The whole thing is just insulting and condescending, and mostly inaccurate on your part, making it all the worse.

I realize that you think I'm attacking you, but I'm really not.  You said you "fail to see how you can misconstrue..." and I'm trying to help you see where you weren't really being as polite or helpful as you now seem to claim you were being.

It seems you're not asking me to be polite, but voicing your desire that I shut up and not dare say anything...

It does seem that way, but I don't think that's what he really meant.

[rjm]

Matt, please add an All option.

[JimH]

On the contrary. I have often said on other threads that I liked many of your ideas, for example your ideas concerning meta data etc. I enjoy discussing things as others idea's often lead to new insights or a better way of doing things. In your case you have a tendency to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with you as wrong - even if it is an opinion. That aside many of  your ideas are great and do contribute to improving the product.

However your tone comes across as demeaning and impolite. It isn't what you say, it is how you say it.

I agree with these sentiments.  Both the pluses and the minuses.

[JimH]

I'll lock this now.  The point of the thread is buried, but maybe someone could restate it concisely in a new thread.

I'm also moving it to the MC17 board.  Unless your request or comment is about a beta, that's a better place to post.