On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 23:18 +0200, Martin Jeppesen wrote: > I need a phrase for when space can not be used for anything, so I call > this "dead space". > > > If we get rid of the the Show/Hide Browser widget then this could work, > > but I don't really have a strong opinion either way. If we don't remove > > the Show/Hide Browser widget then this will cause more vertical space to > > get taken up, which I personally would prefer not to do. > > Moving the Search Entry closer closer (below) the Tracker Browser is > the suggestion I have the strongest opinions about =) > > When it is above the 3 browsers, it gives the impression that the > Search is carried out on all 3 browsers. That makes sense; I don't have a problem with it being moved unless it created more dead space in the UI, and I think it will unless we remove the Show/Hide Browser widget. > I don't know why Mozilla choose to have the Search Entry in the bottom > of Firefox, but I would assume that it is for a similar reason? I've heard that it is at the bottom because putting it at the top would cause the page to move downward when it appears. > The way the Hide Browser and Search Entry are placed now causes a lot > of dead space. Currently 2/3 of the horizontal space is given to the Hide Browser widget and 1/3 to the search entry. I think this is weird because when the window if fairly thin (e.g you have a small display) the search box is small. The obvious thing to do here is make the entry wider. > Personally do I not think the Repeat and Shuffle should be on the main > UI, but if they must it would make good sense to have them below just > the Track Browser together with the Search Entry. I agree with that. > > * Removed Hide Browser. > > I don't know about other people, but I use the Show/Hide Browser widget > > a fair bit - because it is more convenient than using the menu item. If > > some other ideas that have been talked about are implemented then the > > widget will be used for other sources - e.g. an "inline playlist editor", > > basically having the automatic playlist dialog where the library has it's > > browsers. > > I have read some of the posts about queue and playlists, but I didn't > knew that the Hide Browser had a part in this and the inline playlist > editor. It doesn't have anything to do with the queue, and the "inline playlist editor" is just something that has been discussed by a small number of people on irc. My explanation of it has fairly poor, and no-one knows if it would actually work well (because we haven't tried it yet). The point I was trying to make is that the Hide/Show widget _might_ become more useful in the future, but it might not. If people think that we don't need the Hide Browser widget in the main UI, then your suggestion of moving the search entry down and moving the play order controls would probably work well. Can anyone else comment on whether they find having the widget in the main UI useful or not? > Perhaps horizontal tabs should replace the vertical Sources and the > Hide Browser? > > If the Sources and Hide Browser were remove the list of tabs could be > > Library Playlist Tag editor Shares Radio iPod CD Burn My explanation of the "inline playlist editor" was poor, so ignore that for the moment. The problem with using tabs is that it doesn't scale to a large number of sources well. If you have it set out as your example above, you need something to select which playlist or share to use. The two usual ways are a) another row of tabs, which is horrible, or b) a mini-sources list, which kind of defeats the purpose of removing it. If instead you have one tab per source, it is really hard to use with lots of sources. As an example I currently have 18 sources, so have one tab for each wouldn't work too well. > > One thing I will bring up again, is that we really need a better way of > > choosing the play order. The Shuffle/Repeat method only gives you four > > choices, of which "shuffle off, repeat off" probably isn't used much, and > > not many people know the different between "shuffle on, repeat off" and > > "shuffle on, repeat on". > > > > Rhythmbox actually has 7 play orders currently defined, but there is no > > UI to choose some of them. A menu would be the obvious method to use, but > > thinking up good short descriptions is hard. > > There doesn't seam to be a bug for moving Repeat and shuffle out of > the statusbar. Perhaps it should have a bug of its own? Bug 316238 adds a toolbar, and moves the play-order widgets to it. Bug 163196 was originally about adding more play orders, but is also about making more accessible from the UI Bug 168331 is about making the play-order be per-source. I think there was another bug which just said that we should move them, but I can't find it at the moment. > > * Removed Size in MB that was left to the Progressbar. > > > This is the only place in where file sizes are written, so this > > > information does not fit. > > > > Although Rhythmbox doesn't currently burn tracks to normal (data) CDs, > > this is handy when you are making a playlist for that - because you > > need to ensure that it will fit on the CD. I would probably be a good > > idea to show the file size in the track information dialog. > > But you don't want to burn all your songs when you start Rhythmbox or > carrieing out a search doesn't mean you want to burn very thing that > have a surden word in the title. Well no it isn't useful all the time, but it is sometimes useful information. I don't know if removing a few characters from the status line will make that much of a difference. Cheers, James "Doc" Livingston -- "There are some benefits to high blood pressure", Bob mused as another mosquito exploded. -- Bulwer-Lytton contest entry, author unknown.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part