Print

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

[NoCodeUK]

As suggested by Matt this is a new thread to discuss the new Media Library introduced in 9.1.198 (and tried already by us brave souls when it was a prototype)
Please use this thread purely to discuss aspects relating to the current implementation.
I know I am very bad at going OT too but lets try to keep this on topic if we can

Adam

[NoCodeUK]

To start us off here are the problems I have noted so far with the latest implementation.  Some of these were working in the prototypes but are not in the build version.  These are marked with an asterisk.

Grouped schemes are not working (*)
Nested groups are not working (*)
Fields based on numbers aren't working (*)
Fields based on Year/Month are not working (*)

Schemes based simply on year seem to be okay.  It is only when years are either grouped or when month is used too that these are not working

In most case when I say not working I mean that the next column along either doesn't filter correctly according to the rule of the previous column or nothing appears at all.

Adam

[Matt]

Thanks Adam.

Grouped schemes are not working (*)
Nested groups are not working (*)
Fields based on numbers aren't working (*)
Fields based on Year/Month are not working (*)

All of these will be fixed tomorrow.

[NoCodeUK]

Cheers Matt

Another couple of things I just noticed.

1.  In my genre view scheme all of my genres are filtering okay except for Hip-Hop and Trip-Hop which show the whole library.  There are actually only a single artist for each of these (Iam not a big fan of these genres )

2.  In Media Library view the old selection not disappearing bug is back.  By this I mean if you make a selection on one artist then switch to another the equivalent files for the next artist are still highlighted.  I remember this being an issue before and it was fixed.

Cheers for everything guys.  This absolutley rocks and is going to be fantastic for doing discos with.  So easy to naviagte and show people what tracks are available for a particular artist.  I guess it is much easier at times to post about the negatives and not give you guys the credit you deserve so take it from me now that I think MC is the best software I have ever used and you guys are the best developers I have ever had the benefit of working for!  Thanks for letting me be a part of it.

Adam

[jam]

Hi,

Is it possible to use old tree-view browsing style instead of using several windows to browse?

It's really hard to me to browse on MC9 now.  For example, I click artist name in one window, then need to watch another window to see what albums are in and need to watch artist name window again to select another artist.  I'm really dizzy while looking left right left right....  Is there any configuration option to use old simple tree-view for that, please?

I wrote this in 198 beta thread and was asked to discuss here, so writing it again.  Thanks.

[NoCodeUK]

I think old tree view is gone now. You may have to tweak your view schemes a bit to make them more intuitive with the new system but believe me once you have used for a while it is much easier to use than the tree and the filtering possibilities are much better.  Think of it like a jump from HTML to DHTML.  The tree was satic, this new browser is very dynamic (or will be once the bugs are ironed out )  Keep the faith and keep trying it and it will get easier

Adam

[dragyn]

I would have to agree with jam on this one.

some bugs:

'location' doesn't show all directories/unassigned directories.

'playlist' is not showing all playlists/smartlists.

the expand box [±] is being shown for view schemes that are not in a group. I always want to keep clicking it!

need a way to change the font size (can't really see it)

[equalizer]

OMGAWD, honestly i never knew about that view scheme settings... Thanks again to matt for pointing that out, either i skipped over it, or i just never came across it.

plus the bugs:

• Long loading content boxs.
  
• If you play with the artist side for awhile the album box looses sync, and the content box stops working.
  

And a request, for the content side of MC9.1 with the new library system.

should be removed if at all possible, it would look much nicer  

[JoshuaHorowitz]

This is actually quite nice. A lot of bugs to fix though. I have two:

• "Locate\[Anything]" (on right-click menu) doesn't work well (it just locates the given track in <all>).
  
• I have a plain old (actually, filtered with [Album Type]=[Single artist (complete)]) view scheme called "Album (Complete)". As the name would imply, this is only one-level. When I select an album with a dash in its name from the list, it gives me the same results as <all>. This doesn't happen with multi-level schemes. I haven't experimented much though.

All in all, <all> is all screwy. Well, lots of functions point to it that shouldn't, anyway.

Just out of curiousity, isn't anyone scared that Media Center may be described as a cheap iTunes clone by some really ignorant, perhaps in some way fanatical (hint hint), people?

But getting even deeper, what is J River doing with all this really explicit iTunes copy stuff? They're great interface additions, but there seems to be some insidious plan lurking beneath. Perhaps they (J River) are trying to convert potential iTunes for Windows users preemptively? How does this work economically? Legally?

Anyway, good work. I'll play with the multi-pane system some more (has a standardized name been developed for it that we should use? so many questions!).

Joshua

[Tiberius]

My first impression  of this was "yuck this is awful" but I am trying to keep an open mind. I am hoping that most of my initial bad impression is due to the fact that most of it really isn't working right.

I can see jam's view tho. Why not give users the option to choose the standard tree view or the new style?

This seems to be one of those things that people are either going to love or hate with little in between.

[nila]

I REALLY agree with the last post.
I think a lot of users might be lost due to this new style.
I definitely think that even if it took a little extra work it would make a LOT more people fully content by making it an option - ideally per view scheme

[JoshuaHorowitz]

Quick note: In case this hasn't been mentioned, the lists definatly should be F2-able.

I'm really starting to agree with jam and Tiberius. Flexibilty will always be key, and allowing users to dynamically choose between the full tree and multi-pane view shouldn't cause any weird functionality problems. The output of the two interfaces are isomorphic, anyway. The muti-pane system (does it have a name yet?) is a great feature, but not one you should sacrifice a lot of people's happieness for.

I think I've figured out one of my primary problems with the muliti-pane system. The tree had a massive vertical span, allowing for the listing of a lot of artists/albums/etc. The current system wastes a lot of horizontal space, and can only display a few (let's say 15). Here's an idea: Enable the user to have a list-window (or maybe two?) between the tree and the track-list, spanning the whole top-to-bottom range. It would give you a very efficient selection system. I like length. It means I don't have to scroll as much, even if I have thousands of entries. But that's just me.

Joshua

[JoshuaHorowitz]

Nila has my vote for associating tree vs. boxes with view schemes (along with manual control, it would just be a default).

[GHammer]

Funny how set in their ways many people get. Comfort comes from sameness. But progress does not.

I like the new way of showing Artists/Albums/Selections

One thing I see is that I have some Shoutcast lists imported. They are always treated as Audio. Since they are not an actual file, they have no/little info. So in the new view the first entry for Artist and Album panes is <empty>.

First, there should be a way to mark URLs/streaming media as that and not have them show up in the view. Second, when I choose <empty> all entries in the database are shown.

Otherwise, as I said, I like it.

[bennyd]

List fields (semi column seperated values) are not working properly in the new library view

[NoCodeUK]

The problem here is that people are looking at this from the perspective of how things worked in the tree.  It takes a bit of lateral thinking and a little bit of tweaking of your view schemes but it actually works a lot better once you have done this.  Example - using the new library I have tweaked my Artist Album view scheme to create a directory style view (don't try it at the moment as it doesn't work.  should be fixed tomorrow).  The scheme is set like this Album Artist(grouped at level 3 set to show individual items, Album Artist (no grouping), Album.  This produces a four column view.  The first column has grouped letters A-C, D-F etc, the second column shows A-Z, the third, Artists, the last Albums.  To find a particular Album Click the group of the Artist eg Audioslave you click A-C, the second column changes to show A B C, the third shows all artists A-C the forth their albums. Click on A in the 2nd, 3rd shows all A Artists 4th their albums, click Audioslave in the 3rd, 4th shows Audioslave.  It is actually very intuitive, much more so than the tree once you think it through.

Wait until later when the bugs hav been ironed out and then try and approach it with a completely open mind thinking about how you can work in this environment and forgetting there ever was a tree and believe me, pretty soon you will be saying "Tree, what tree?"

Adam

[NoCodeUK]

May be too big a departure from the standard windows Explorer type of file management

This was taken from the bug thread and I think it actually highlights something interesting.  To think of organizing media in the explorer style is actually a bit of a paradox.  Doc Lotus above has actually said this in his statement without even realising.  Explorer is designed as a file manager and it performs this function very well but that is all it can really do.  When we talk about organising media files we are not talking about simply organising files but organising the meta data that goes with those files.  This is something that explorer does not do very well.  To move away from this style of navigation/organisation actually makes a lot of sense.  The new model is designed specifically as a viewer for media files which focuses on this meta data aspect rather than explorers physical file location aspect.  As I said in my post above, put in the time, think it through and tweak your view schemes and it will work much better.  It is very easy to become complacent with something new because it strays away from what we are used too.  It disturbs our comfort zone.
Think about organising images in the old tree style for a moment...done it?...,now think about organising images in the new style with say columns like Genre/Year/People in Photo/Image.  Now think about how much easier that would be to find a specific image than it would be searching through the tree....

I'll leave y'all to ponder  Free yourself from the comfort zone of the old tree and embrace the future of meta data management

Adam

[jam]

but believe me once you have used for a while it is much easier to use than the tree

I used it for a while and still don't like it.

New view is good for tag editing, making play-list, or any other productive behaviors.  Less distance to move eyes and mouse around.

However, for simple browsing purpose to decide music to play, I had to move my eyes and mouse much much longer, more than 3 times longer.  What I wanted to do is just picking up an artist and album to play it.  Then, I needed to click left pane, watch right pane, sometime click right pane too, then watch left pane again and click it...  It's really pain.  I read GUI papres talking about differences between horizontal and vertical eye movement.  Today, I've learned it by myself.

The reason I love tree-view is that it reduces my eyes and mouse movements.  I'm using 198 like this now, http://www.io.com/~kazushi/mc/mc9v.jpg.  By using like this, I can click artist and album easily.  Moreover, I can click shuffle button much easier.  I don't like the way to use MC9 like this, though.  However, this is the only way I can use 198 without eyes/muscle pain.  

Think about organising images in the old tree style for a moment...done it?...,now think about organising images in the new style with say columns like Genre/Year/People in Photo/Image.

It's just a program problem.  I think it's possible to use any kind of filtering/grouping in tree view, isn't it?  By using multiple pane, we've got more horizontal space to represent information.  But, there is nothing more than that.

[NoCodeUK]

You cannot easily naviagte, or search or filter images using a tree.  This has nothing to do with layout but the intrinsic design of a tree itself.  They are not designed for this kind of purpose.  At the end of the day the purpose of a tree is to present hirerachical information easily.  Searching through meta dat goes beyond hierachical representation.  Its not a static thing, it is a dynamic thing.  A tree cannot automatically update in relation to change in meta data, it remains static.  Yes you can drill down a level but you cannot dynamically use your meta data in any way.  This is what the new view allows.  Although I understand what you are saying about more horizontal eye movement, I don't personally buy it.  I don't think I have to do anything more here than I did before.  If anything I have to do less using my directory style view scheme.  Before I had to scroll down a list  of 70 odd artists.  Now within two clicks I can filter it down to the artiist I want with the minumum of effort.  The amount of horizontal eye movement I exert to do it isn't anymore than I would using Word or Excel, if anything it is less than I would use in a complex excel spreadsheet.  As a model I think the tree style is too restrictive personally for the kind of organisation I want to do.  I want to use my meta data in a dynamic way, to increaese my productivity when using my media.  MC 9.0 will keep the tree so can still be used for this style of organisation.  But if MC is to become just that, a media center, its model needs to change to be able to embrace multiple genres of files.  This new design will allow that - the tree model will not.  I don't think I could personally go back to the old style, you may decide you have to.  I hope eventually this will not put you off MC as a product as I think this view is very forward thinking and wioll probably be looked on in the future as quite an important step for meta data management software

Adam

[jam]

Yes you can drill down a level but you cannot dynamically use your meta data in any way.  This is what the new view allows.

If you can use meta data dynamically in new multiple pane view, why isn't it possible to use it to update tree view too?  For example, change first level chilren in tree-view as grouped artists A-C, D-F, etc, and second level children as artists in the group...  You don't have to use static data structure for the tree representation.  If you had to, I think it's the restriction of the program.  This is not offence, BTW.

[NoCodeUK]

Trees cannot dynamically update in this way as far as I am aware.  Try changing a view scheme in MC.  The tree has to refresh itself.  This is nasty, it is not dynamic, it changes from one static tree to another static tree.  This is not a limitation in the program.  This is a limitation in the control itself.  Trees work by being fed a list of static hierachical information.  If you want to change the tree you have to feed another stream of hierachical info or info that adds to/takes away from the structure.  For this to work dynamically that is a lot of structural swapping and a lot of refreshing with the tree returning to the root node evry time.  Not very practical for dynamically altering the data.  What MC is trying to do now goes beyond the scope of the tree control.  Matt has said this. The windows common controls cannot acomplish what they want to do.  That is why they are now drawing everything themselves and using all their own controls.  I admit it is strange to look at at first and I know I will probably not persuade you other wisr if you are dead set against it but I do think this design in the long run will allow better all round MEDIA organisation.  The tree is probably just as good for organising Music.  This model is better for all types of media and remember MC is now designed to handle Music, Video, Images, TV programs, radio streams etc etc.

Adam

[Jaguu]

NoCodeUK,

About Comfort Zone

Well, as you certainly know, the majority of us live in some kind of comfort zones all the time. The toughest comfort zones are well known: Eating habits and working habits! For big business comfort zones are a steady, calculable factor. You do not make mass business with the few that always embrace the newest innovations. And by selling a product to only those with a very plastic, flexible brain you probably do not feed your own kids.

From experience in the IT world, I learned how reluctant people are in changing something they are used to. It took myself years to move from my favorite Unix word processor to learn and embrace WinWord.  I feel people like Bill Gates know this very well. That's why MS is not a master of innovation, but a master of big business.

Some years ago, Gartner Group wanted to find out whether users would be eager to switch to another Office product such as StarOffice or others. The majority of comments given by users was: "It does not work like WinWord!" Such is the power of comfort. Do not underestimate it!

Personally, after experimenting more with it and after bug fixing I can say, I start liking it. But this does not mean that everybody accepts such radical changes easily.

[NoCodeUK]

Jaguu,

Good points and I agree with you whole heartedly that it is important to think about peoples comfort zones but I think MC needs these changes to really move on.  Maybe if this had been the first version of MC it would be easier to accept.  Maybe the name was changed too quickly and should have stayed as Media Jukebox until the radical cahnges were done at which point it could have become MC.  But if you take into account that MC 9.0 was really MC 1.0 then such changes are not quite so radical.  Ifwe perceive MC as what it really is, a completely new product and don't compare it to MJ which was essentially a different code base, these changes aren't quite as radical as the appear

Adam

[Doof]

Real world example of MC past and present. Let's say I want to play the song Subdivisions off of Rush's album Signals. I've picked this album and this band because Rush occurs late in the alphabet and they have a lot of albums.

Past :

1. Click on + next to Media Library
2. Click on + next to Audio
3. Click on + next to Artist\Album
4. Scroll down to Rush
5. Click on + next to Rush
6. Scroll down to Signals
7. Click on Signals
8. Right Click on Subdivisions
9. Choose Play

Present :
1. Click on + next to Media Library
2. Click on + next to Audio
3. Click on Artist\Album
4. Click on Rush
5. Click on Signals
6. Right click on Subdivisions
7. Choose Play

That's 2 steps worth of useless scrolling avoided using the new Media Library interface. And that's only on a 2 level view scheme. The difference grows even larger the more levels you navigate. Let's say I want to play 2 different albums by two different bands. The current scheme works even better for that as it allows you to select multiple artists from the Artist column. This is something that the Tree View CANNOT do. Not and allow any kind of filtering.

Believe me, I hated it when I first saw it, too. Actually, I didn't hate it, I just didn't understand what it could do for me. The more I play with it the more I get it. And the more I like it.

[ccullers]

well I've been a user for a good while now, but never a message poster.  But I figured new build, nows a good time to start!  I enjoy the new window styles, at first it was like WHOA, what is this, but with a lil use I have found it easy to navigate.  My thing is though, I have wayyyyyyy to much music that is without album to have a always open coloum just for that.  It would be great if that was change able to gener or year or something different.  If not does anyone know the best way to find albums for ohhh lets say 3.000 songs LOL  

I have noticed there are still a few kinks in the seperating system . .ie
Artist is Aerosmith  . . . . Album is Aerosmith . . . It shows every song in the Aerosmith collection, not just the ones on Aerosmith (the Album).  See what I am sayin?  Other then that it seems to run well, and my only media player just gets better and better!  

[NoCodeUK]

Nice one Doof.  You managed to say much more concisely with your example what I was trying to say.  I just cannot wait to start using this with my Image collection.  It is gonna be so versatile once the kinks are ironed out.  great for using when DJing too.  In fact just great full stop

Adam

[jam]

NoCodeUK,

I'm saying it is possible to use the same data structure as what new multi-pane is using and represent it as tree view.  You explained how to use tree data structure with dynamic update and said it's nasty.  I agree.  However, I've never said that.  

I'm still wishing the option to show in tree view will be avialable in future.  Although, your explanation looks like there is no tree-view in the future MC9.1.

[Kurt Young]

I love it.  I love it I love it I love it.

I don't think that users will abandon MC9 because of this.  I feel that the old "tree and node" system was over-busy and too scroll-heavy.

I think that the "handles" on the borders (which are a little too dim in pixos) are a hard way to open and close the left pane.  A toolbar button with an "up/down" state would be easier, I think.  Click down, the pane appears, click up, it goes away.  The handles could still be used, and surely can be used to resize the panes, but it's such a tiny, hard to see target for casual opening/closing of the left pane.

It's still buggy, but not much.  For instance, using the default view (Media Library is selected in the node, giving Artist and Album browsing windows), I clicked "all" in Artist and picked an album at random in the Album browse.  Sometimes it showed only the requested album, sometimes it shows the whole library.

I love the new goodies.  Keep 'em coming.

[Doof]

If you leave the Tree in place, then you're stuck, essentially, with trying to support two different GUI's. While not impossible to do, it's still a big pain.

Besides with the Tree View you cannot select multiple Artists or Albums, etc.

The multi-pane view also allows you to skip clicks that the tree doesn't.

For instance, let's say I want to play the album "...And Justice For All" by Metallica. With the Tree, I'd have to click on Artist, scroll down and select Metallica, then select ...And Justice For All. With the current view, once I've clicked on the Artist\Album view, I can skip the Artist pane and go right for the Album pane, which will have "...And Justice For All" listed right near the top.

[Doof]

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that the paned view allows you to :

A: Filter the list of songs based on the artist and album you've selected. (or whatever fields are involved)

B: Not bother with the extra steps involved to filter the list of songs by allowing you to skip a step in the filtering process and going right for what you're after

C: Allow you to further enhance the filtering by allowing multiple selections of items.

[lee269]

I must confess to being a little bit worried about the potential loss of the tree. I would like to know what its going to be replaced with. But the more I play with the new layout, I am already getting to like it. Is it better? Probably, but I was pretty proficient in MC before anyway.

However, I always had terrible trouble trying to explain the system to others when I showed it to them. Ive felt for quite some time that the MC interface was the one thing in need of serious work, even though I got along with it OK. Im pleased that the UI is now an issue for discussion.

I wonder if subconsciously I found the tree easy because Artist/Album reflected my directory structure. The new layout is more abstracted from hard disk file structures. One of the things that first put me off was that the view scheme panes seemed to take up a lot of the screen real estate. But as I use it more, I realise that searching out library files to build playlists what I use MC for most. It makes more sense to me now that the library filter facilities to be up front.

There are plenty of small tweaks still required before this is finished, though. I want to be able to drag library fields from a list into the multi pane area rather than creating fixed view schemes. I want and/or/include/exclude in the panes to strengthen the search. And I realised after attempting Doofs example that If he had chosen The Beatles in my library its a long scroll down the 'The...' bands. Looks like I need to reorganise my artist names.

Just come from apple.com, and now I realise where the 'iTunes' references are coming from. Well, weak artists borrow, great artists steal...

[knickelfarz]

Past :

1. Click on + next to Media Library
2. Click on + next to Audio
3. Click on + next to Artist\Album
4. Scroll down to Rush
5. Click on + next to Rush
6. Scroll down to Signals
7. Click on Signals
8. Right Click on Subdivisions
9. Choose Play

Present :
1. Click on + next to Media Library
2. Click on + next to Audio
3. Click on Artist\Album
4. Click on Rush
5. Click on Signals
6. Right click on Subdivisions
7. Choose Play

That's 2 steps worth of useless scrolling avoided using the new Media Library interface. And that's only on a 2 level view scheme. The difference grows even larger the more levels you navigate. Let's say I want to play 2 different albums by two different bands. The current scheme works even better for that as it allows you to select multiple artists from the Artist column.

Sorry, Doof, but I can not see how you came to this result. This will only be true if you have less then about 30 artists in your collection (depending on your screenresolution, that is the number of lines that can be shown in the Artist/Album pane). So for almost every collection there will be the need for scrolling in this case. And if an artist has more than about 30 albums, it will be the same. In fact, if you are used to handle trees, you would scroll down to "Rush" (to stay with your example) in a way that "Rush" is on top of the tree. So when you open the "Rush" node, about 60 albums can be displayed in the tree. So the result of an comparison between "past and present" is not 9:7 but 9:9, maybe 8:9 ... to "select multiple artists from the Artist column" even only works, if the artists names accidentally start with nearly the same letters...

Anyhow, I can not see why everybody is so upset about this new view. It's just another way to display the same. If you prefer "past or present" depents on your habits, maybe the new look will give easier access to  newbies. The best would be to give every user the choice to choose between the "full" tree and the new look...I can live with both of them  

I think the more important question is how the "present" will be able to deal with "real" improvements ... Nila summarized them already in the "Media Library Prototype" thread:

- being able to search the library while still watching the playing now files
- being able to drag and drop files into a playlist and drop them in the position we want them in
- being able to add files to the cd burn playlist and see all the cd burner info as we're adding the files and also again order them as we want them as we add them.
- being able to drag and drop files between seperate playlists to move them visually and easily.
- being able to be navigating the tree two ways at once without having to stop using any one location (can navigate one way in the top and one way in the bottom)
- and more  

Maybe the "best place for File Properties" issue can be added...

With the new drawing methods of MC 9.1 it seems to be no problem to open as many windows as you want and where you want...but the question is: How many windows (or maybe better: 'panes') are usefull and in which way the content of them is presented to the user. Maybe a really "sexy" liststyle with coverart and album details can convince more users to use MC than everything else ...

[KingSparta]

well i remember a skin that turned MJ7 i think it was into a Winamp Lookalike.

since i hate winamp it never did much for me

I can't see why anyone would use winamp i think it has the worst user interface out there.

Real One went down hill after Real Jukebox II

MusicMatch is ok if you only have a few files in your library more than that you might want to start it and then go for a walk waiting for it to finaly respond to comands.

[Doof]

I think one of the biggest problems people are having is seperating the idea of their media as though it had to be the same as their file structure. This is simply not true.

While it's nice to organize your music within your file structure, it's really a seperate issue than organizing it within MC.

You could very easily dump all of your music files into a single folder and name them all 00000001.mp3 through 99999999.mp3 and MC would function just the same. It's not about the filename and directory it's all in. It's about the tags, the metadata. Like NoCodeUK pointed out... Trees are great for displaying your files. Because files exist in such a way that any given file exists in only 1 folder. Folders can contain multiple files and folders, but files belong in only one folder. Your media files are different. They can belong in all sorts of different categories. Trying to pigeonhole them into a tree is just going to limit what you can do.

[Doof]

Sorry, Doof, but I can not see how you came to this result. This will only be true if you have less then about 30 artists in your collection (depending on your screenresolution, that is the number of lines that can be shown in the Artist/Album pane). So for almost every collection there will be the need for scrolling in this case. And if an artist has more than about 30 albums, it will be the same. In fact, if you are used to handle trees, you would scroll down to "Rush" (to stay with your example) in a way that "Rush" is on top of the tree. So when you open the "Rush" node, about 60 albums can be displayed in the tree. So the result of an comparison between "past and present" is not 9:7 but 9:9, maybe 8:9...

Yeah, I realized that after I posted, and then just hoped nobody would catch on. But while there may be scrolling involved in this new method, it's not as severe. It especially becomes more efficient when you start opening up multiple view schemes, as you won't have the artist list from Artist\Album resting on top of Genre\Artist\Album which is in turn resting on top of Year\Artist\Album. Every time you open a View Scheme the old one is closed automatically. And while that's something that could be done with a tree, it quickly begins to be a pain if you need to hop back and forth between the two. With the paned view, JRiver could easily make it so that it remembers it's last open position, further facilitating this type of navigation.

[jam]

I have the same question what knickelfarz asked.  Moreover, in fact, new pane is hard to scroll.  I could scroll by rotating wheel in old tree-view.  In new multiple-pane view, I need to click something first to change focus on or use scroll bar.  It's very good to me if MC9.1 could automatically change the focus for mouse wheel.

[KingSparta]

I am a bit behind the times since i just installed 9.1.198

but i kind of like the New Artist\Album lists

the only problem i see is if i have my mouse over the list the scroll bar should work for that list. right now you need to click on the list first before the mouse scroll wheel works.

[Doof]

I've seen some apps that scroll the window the mouse cursor is hovering over when the wheel is used. I would definitely insist (meaning beg and plead) that they include this capability in with this new design. I agree completely that it's necessary, especially in this kind of interface.

[KingSparta]

if you have loaded up my little plugin Lyrics and bios editor it does this by knowing if the mouse is over the window and then changing focus to that window.

so if you move the mouse from window 1 to window 2 focus changes to window 2 and the mouse scroll wheel works now on that window.

[jam]

One more request about MC9.1 new multiple-pane view.

Is it possible to adjust the width of each pane?  I want to make Artist pane narrower to reduce eyes/mouse movements.  If GUI could remember the ratio among panes and apply it when whole window size is changed, it's really nice.  Thanks.

[KingSparta]

One more request about MC9.1 new multiple-pane view.

Is it possible to adjust the width of each pane?  I want to make Artist pane narrower to reduce eyes/mouse movements.  If GUI could remember the ratio among panes and apply it when whole window size is changed, it's really nice.  Thanks.

i was thinking of that also.

i was thinking that if the devider in the center could be adjusted and tried (it did not work).

[Doof]

Maybe it could allow the auto-size columns option to carry over to the view panes? Although personally, I'd like to see two seperate options for auto-sizing the content view window columns and the view pane columns.

[KingSparta]

i don't use auto resize because i would like it to only resize what i see and not the whole list.

if i am working on a bunch of short titles that are in the list, it will resize on a file 20,000 files below what i am looking at that has a really long title or name.

[Doof]

Maybe now that they're drawing all of their own components, they can allow for curved column borders so there is absolutely no wasted space...

[knickelfarz]

LOL, an unexpected challenge for weird skinners  

[Doof]

When can we expect one of your now-famous concept art screenshots?

[Matt]

Just wanted to mention that 9.1.199 (now available) fixes a bunch of the bugs and has huge speed improvements.

The next build will feature a new system for building and editing view schemes that should help round the whole thing out.

Thanks everyone.

[knickelfarz]

Uuh, Matt, dis nu verzion is so coool...Can nohw use it at 640x480 an' less!

[Marty3d]

I really like the new library function...trees are good but not if you have to scroll forever and ever...

A question though,
Scenario: I was about to test it to find files that wasn't rated.
- Navigated to my scheme Rating/Artist/Album.
- Beneath Rating tab I have <all>, ?, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But when I select '?' nothing shows, but <all>, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 renders Artist and Album.

Am I doing/thinking wrong here?

/Martin

[knickelfarz]

Just wanted to mention that 9.1.199 (now available) fixes a bunch of the bugs and has huge speed improvements.

Again GREAT work! It's getting better & better & better & better....

The next build will feature a new system for building and editing view schemes that should help round the whole thing out.

Sorry for the picture above, just kidding ... I mean, if there was an option for building view schemes where you can select something like "Resize First Column" it will be nearly perfect! The first most usefull component type in view schemes almost is something like "Genre", "Decade", A, B, C ... These components don't need 33% or 50% per cent of screenwidth ... But I guess you discovered that already years ago