On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 21:42, jorge o. castro wrote: > The search box is needed, this feature is just too good to ignore. I agree, it will go in :) > When > I first saw your mockup the first thing that crept into my head was "ok, > search box is gone, I guess that means find-as-you-type searching in the > library, COOL!" Yeah, we want that too...need to get on jrb to implement it in the treeview :) > Then I looked at the artist and album columns, it seems that they're > fixed in the mockup and not collapsable like they currently are. Then I > thought to myself, "When I want to listen to Rush, do I scroll all the > way down on my artist list, or do I just type 'Ru' in the search box and > let rhythmbox prune my playlist for me in two keystrokes? I find that > wether I am search by artist or title, I tend to use the search box, and > that I rarely use the > Browse functionality in rhythmbox, so I think > that for me, those two top areas would be a waste of space. We'd still have a View->Browser menu item. > I also happen to use iTunes on my one Windows box. One thing I have > noticed is that the "Party Shuffle" feature is great. This is a DJ like > feature that works like this, A "Party Shuffle" thinger is in the source > thing on the left, so it looks like a playlist with a different icon, in > there iTunes picks 10 random songs. When you hit play it plays the first > one. From there you can reorder the list, remove ones you don't like > (iTunes then adds another random songs so there's always 10 on the > list). As songs are finished the song is grayed out, and the last 5 are > always listed, grayed out above the current song. There are options on > the bottom for using a specific playlist for the source and for changing > 10 songs to 25 or whatever. Well, we could definitely do something like that in the Auto Play mode. I'll try to put together a mockup today. > Luckily for rhythmbox, Apple kind of botched the UI for Party Shuffle > IMO. The idea is good but the implementation is kind of "meh". First > off, they have a check box for "Play higher rated songs more often". I > think this is solved with the autorating/random thinger rb is already > doing, so you don't even need a UI there. I think where they botched the > UI is that in order to edit the upcoming queue, you need to click on the > master library, find your song, then drag it into Party Shuffle. Then > you have to click /back/ on Party Shuffle and put the song where you > want it in the queue. So, when switching back and forth I lose the > context of my playlist. Yuck. > This guy I know uses Zinf for this very reason. Both the library AND the > queue are visible at all times. That's something that we'd be doing in the new Rhythmbox UI. I really like having the browser be prominent (with all the information it gives). > Muine is pretty good at this, the whole UI seems to be based on queuing > up music, but to me rhythmbox's strength is the playlist functionality. > By now I've got my entire listening habits mapped out in playlists, In regular playlists or automatic playlists? > After some discussion with some friends on IRC, it really depends on how > you listen to music. Do you like to queue or to browse? I think that > each program caters to each spectrum of listening. For me, I've found > that Muine is good when I want to listen to whole albums in a certain > order, and I admit, most of that is because the album art thing is so > cool. I'm still in rhythmbox 90% of the time. Well I think having two totally separate music players for the two kinds of people kind of sucks. I want to try really, really hard to just have one that works for both kinds of people. Maybe it's not possible - but we should try. > I agree with Ben that this makes rb very muine-like. No - it's simply trying to solve the XMMS use case. So is Muine, except it includes album covers basically. > Sure, Muine is new > and shiny, and it's trendy to dig the new Mono apps, but is it a good > idea to go in this direction if Muine is already there? XMMS has been there for way longer. There's an incredibly longstanding bug against RB for this kind of functionality. > I think the idea > of "Jukebox" in the existing playlist area with double-click adding > songs to this queue would be a good idea to try out in the meantime. I want to get away from Sources. > I think that thinking about the UI is a good idea, but I think it's a > good thing that rhythmbox is familiar to itunes users. Yes - but I don't think we'll be able to keep being familiar to iTunes users.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part