Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] yet another new mockup (meta)

On Sun, 2003-05-11 at 22:11, Jorn Baayen wrote:
> > Burn makes no sense in the library source, but does in the playlist
> > source. I think the idea of a meta-button as I described in 
> > my writeup is really useful. It's either toggle browser or new smart
> > playlist in library, burn in playlist, and rip in cd.
> Hrm, I think burn makes sense in the library because, why would burning
> a playlist work and not burning an album? To the user they should be
> more or less the same thing, a different view of your music collection.
> (Especially true with vfolders and such)
> But it doesnt matter to me much whether we have it or not, just.. well.
> Since we cannot use a text label (no space) on the meta button I think
> it might get pretty confusing. (Whats this button with its everchanging
> icon?). It's even in the player area which makes it extra confusing.

But we can use a text label. We just have to find rather short labels
and then make the button as large as the largest of those labels. This
is already commonly done in Gtk dialogs to provide more consistent
button spacing (see the close confirmation in gedit). If we use somewhat
smart short labels and a longer descriptive tooltip AND a descriptive
icon, it should work very well. "Burn a CD" (or "Burn to CD), "Rip from
CD", "New/Create Playlist" (or "VPlaylist" maybe) and "Show/Hide
Browser" would work very well for example. Certainly a _lot_ better than
a simple icon and I also like the idea of such a meta button very much.

> > 
> > One thing I never said about Daniel;s mockup is that the 
> > meta button cannot have text in it because when the button changes
> > the text would have to change, changing the size of the button, and 
> > that is just horrible ui.
> > 
> > > - instead there is a 'show browser' checkbox, purpose immediately clear
> > > in the source area (probably useful for playlists too, especially
> > > 'vplaylists')
> > 
> > I really don't like the idea of a browser for playlists. Playlist are
> > ment to be chronological...
> Playlists, yes - but not these vfolder thingies.. like 'all rock with a
> rating higher than 4'. You probably want to be able to browse that.

Hmm, couldn't you just use the library view then? This sounds reasonable
though and the "toggle browser" function of the meta button is actually
the only one I'm a bit worried about (from a usability POV). How about
adding a "Toggle Browser" control somewhere (like in your mockup or just
in the menu) and make the meta button be "Burn to CD" in library view,

> > 
> > > - shuffle button with label to make it clearer
> > 
> > I could be wrong but to me this looks very like an action button and
> > would expect it to actually shuffle the current song list as apposed to
> > playing in a shuffled manner.
> Hrm, maybe.. I'm not sure. Fat chance that is because we have all seen
> iTunes and the previous mockups. 

I don't even understand the iTunes UI yet ;) but I had exactly the same
thought as Mark. This looks like an action button and "shuffle" could
just as well mean to physically shuffle the songs around. Not a big deal
but a minor nitpick. :)

> > > - no repeat button (not necessary I think..)
> > 
> > I think it's important and useful...
> Why? (Useful, sure, but not often toggled so is it worth being given
> such as prominent place?)

Oh absolutely! That's why I think those things fit well into the
statusbar. The important thing isn't that you can toggle them quickly,
but that you can always see weither they are active or not. I definately
want to know weither I am repeating my playlist or not. :) And I see no
harm in combining that with a toggle function (the checkbox).
This is actually how I came up with the idea in the first place. I
thought "hmm it would be nice to have some small icons (like a lamp)
showing weither those things are active or not. A label could be used to
make them descriptive. And it would be nice if I could toggle them,
too". Then I realized that this is exactly what checkboxes do.

> > Personally I much prefer Daniel's mockup, if we remove the text from the
> > meta button, and change it to toggling the browser. That is the only
> > think i can find fault with and that is a lot better than anything else
> > anyone has come up with. I think he's earned the pint.
> > 
> > The big search box may be fairly useless but IMHO it looks a lot better,
> > and the checkboxes for repeat and shuffle are a lot clearer than
> > buttons.
> I think the huge search box looks pretty bad, but it's not a big deal..

Yep I thought exactly the same while creating it but thought it would
look better than leaving out so much empty space. Meanwhile I rather
like it though. However, placing something else useful there certainly
wouldn't hurt. That's why I wrote that it adds some "breathing room" in
my original mail. ;) Your "show browser" thingy could very well be it
(it should be an expander IMO) and the space could be kept empty when
it's not available. 
The downside of it is, that it adds some visual noise:
I'm undecided weither I like this better or not.

> IMHO a checkbox is just as clear as a togglebutton with a label.... :)

It's not so clear that it is a toggle. I would also expect it to look
rather ugly to have this big fat button constantly pressed down. :D I
think this space works much better for something as important as the
meta button. Why should "shuffle" get that much of a prominent place
anyway? :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]