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.
> :)

Heres something i worked out on this:

Buttons we would need and their char count:

New Playlist:  12
Burn to CD:  10
Rip from CD:  11
Add Station:  11
Show Browser: 12
Hide Browser: 12

the last two are null and void with your mockup, which i happen to like a

As you can see from my listing, there is only a maximum of a two char
difference.  if you make the button as big as the largest of those, right
justify test, and left justify the icon then there would be no
rearanging/resizing of things and it would look pretty nice IMO.  the only
problem with this is of course other languages.

>> >
>> > 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,
> too?
>> >
>> > > - 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.

I really like this mockup.  I think the arrow would make it pretty clear
whats going on and this is something that is used elsewhere in gnome apps,
so it would be a familar peice of UI for most users.

>> 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? :)

I don't really like toggle buttons that much.  Especially wide ones.  they
just ended up looking very ugly in most themes and with shuffle and repeat
being things i leave on a lot, it makes the app looking unpleasing most of
the time... this is one reason  why i keep net-rb on its own desktop... so
i don't have to see those ugly things all the time.  I think checkboxes
are much clearer for the average user.  the ambiguity comes from the fact
that none of the other buttons in the player area are toggle buttons. 
this means that the shuffle button would be breaking consistency there.

When it comes to the position of those checkboxes, i really like this
mockup.  I think that having them on the bottom left is nice.  It keeps
them out of the way of users who don't use them often, but at the same
time makes  perfect sense.  IMO one of the major items of the status a
media player is what repeat/shuffle mode its in.

--Douglas McMorris

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