Thank you MrC.
However that is not the point. I mean I can click on the arrow next to an artist name. I see the result for that artist. The name of the artist is even copied to the search box. In all aspect it look like a normal search. However it's not a normal search... it's an *exact* search. You can upgrade to the default fuzzy search by typing an extra letter then deleting it.
Can't we agree the interface is a bit confusing ? I'll even argue it make things a bit clumsy.
CASE STUDY: Try to list all album by one artist, play two of those albums (all tracks of them)
Suppose the artist is Hans Zimmer. I type "Hans", autocomplete propose "Hans Zimmer (Artist)"
Select album1 and album2, rigth click>play. Missing Songs !!
(It would work perfectly if all track artists where exaclty "Hans Zimmer". However about half of them are "Hans Zimmer & Someone Else")
Now suppose, I skip the autocomplete. I type "Hans Zimmer". I now have full fuzzy search and whole album are matched. Select album1 and album2, rigth click>play. Works !
Explained like that, it almost looks like a bug. It's not usual that accepting search suggestion make the result dramatically different. I can understand the search is now limited to a single field in parenthesis. But the difference in search behavior (exact vs fuzzy) was a surprise.
I beleive one problem I have with the interface is that when I interact with an album thumbnail, I think I interact with a whole album, rather than matched tracks, grouped by album.
Anyways that is the proper way to solve the case ? Supposing you landed on the exact artist search because of autocomplete or arrow "->"
double click album one,
click arrow next to album name,
right click on album > play
navigation back,
double click album two,
click on arrow next to album name,
right click on album two > More play option > Add Play now.
--------
Am I the only one bothered by how hard it is to manipulate full albums from inside search results ?
Did I miss some clever trick ?