Re: [Usability] Category Management (i.e. Rhythmbox Music Player)

[Jacob Beauregard <jake13jake comcast net>]

By category and number of items? Browsing within categories, in 
practice, is typically done in alphanumerical sorted order. Just so 
you're aware, the way I'm interpreting your idea is that the artists or 
albums would be sorted by number of track items, and key matches within 
that sorting order would revert to alphabetical order, as though one 
were to have separate columns for each, and it would sort first by 
artist and then by number of track items. I wouldn't think that to be a 
better solution, but I may have misinterpreted you.

Here's one case (my own). This is the number of tracks per artist I have 
in order of artist name:
All Artists (1884)
11, 1, 1, 1, 23, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 12, 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 28, 1, 1, 
1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 20, 16, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 
1, 10, 1, 14, 24, 5, 37, 1, 3, 1, 16, 1, 1, 1, 15, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 
20, 13, 1, 10, 2, 1, 7, 1, 1, 2, 1, 16, 1, 1, 24, 15, 1, 55, 1, 9, 2, 1, 
1, 1, 1, 15, 1, 76, 12, 1, 1, 1, 1, 14, 12, 1, 11, 1, 1, 20, 13, 3, 1, 
1, 16, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 12, 1, 13, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 24, 1, 1, 
1, 14, 1, 1, 9, 16, 1, 1, 49, 4, 1, 7, 5, 1, 57, 32, 42, 1, 1, 1, 13, 1, 
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 36, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 1, 9, 1, 1, 10, 48, 12, 1, 
1, 15, 35, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 29, 1, 1, 1, 1, 21, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 16, 1, 1, 
10, 1, 1, 5, 1, 21, 1, 80, 1, 1, 1, 2, 74, 1, 1, 1, 1, 169, 1, 1, 1, 1, 
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 13, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10, 13, 1, 
1, 1, 1, 14, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 13, 1, 2, 11, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 13, 
23, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 16, 1.

How would anyone find use in browsing through that? Seriously!! That 
gives me 280 artists to look through, very few being substantive in 
terms of the number of items. Albums, 263 total, aren't much better for 
browsing, given the number of singles I have. A way to weed out all of 
those 1's and to put them in their own category would be a good start.

In essence, if I could browse through my collection in the following 
manner, it would be a lot easier on me:

11, 23, 3, 2, 12, 9, 28, 20, 16, 11, 2, 10, 14, 24, 5, 37, 3, 16, 15, 2, 
20, 13, 10, 2, 7, 2, 16, 24, 15, 55, 9, 2, 15, 76, 12, 14, 12, 20, 13, 
3, 16, 12, 13, 7, 24, 14, 9, 16, 49, 4, 7, 5, 57, 32, 42, 13, 2, 36, 11, 
9, 10, 48, 12, 15, 35, 29, 21, 2, 16, 10, 5, 21, 80, 2, 74, 169, 11, 13, 
10, 13, 14, 13, 2, 11, 13, 23, 2, 16, Others -> 1, (...), 1.

You know, I'd be happier with the quality of my music player if that 
were the case. In addition, the number of 2-3-track artists aren't 
nearly as terrible as the number of singles I have, though another 
person may opt to categorize 2-3-track artists within an "Other" list if 
that option was available.

Also, ignoring things like the "The" in front of an artist name, when 
sorting, would be useful for many people, though arguably the current 
method is fine. The justification is that there are simply a ridiculous 
number of bands whose names start with "The." In fact, it accounts 12% 
of all artists in my collection. In practice, in many music players and 
at record stores, artists are sorted by name ignoring "The," or any 
other frequent participle. Equal distribution across the alphabet tends 
to make scanning through a list, at least for browsing purposes, much 
easier.

Jasir Alavi wrote:
> better idea would be to have an option categorize
>
> 1. by album, alphabetically
> 2. by album and number of items
>
> 1. by artist, alphabetically
> 2. by artist and number of items
>
> so that all categories with fewer items can be show at the bottom.
> and still give the user to set it alphabetically.
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jacob Beauregard 
> <jake13jake comcast net <mailto:jake13jake comcast net>> wrote:
>
>     Alright, so the clearest example of problems in regards to
>     category management is in Rhythmbox, where songs are categorized
>     by Album and Artist.
>
>     I'll precede this by saying, effective categorization requires the
>     minimization of the number of categories that contain  very few
>     items without browsing becoming increasingly difficult.
>
>     For instance, one doesn't categorize books solely by name in a
>     library.
>
>     With that said, there is a problem with the categorization method
>     that Rhythmbox uses. When one categorizes by Artist, and a large
>     number of artists have few unique tracks, it no longer proves an
>     effective method of categorization. The same could be said for
>     Albums that are singles or have very few tracks.
>
>     This makes browsing extremely difficult; most users will thus
>     default to using the search bar. However, browsing is just as
>     important as filtering due to the factor of greater visibility.
>     It's just like using an aggregator vs. using a search engine. They
>     both serve their purposes, and one should be able to use either
>     effectively.
>
>     I would propose for _any_ kind of populated categorization first
>     to require that an expandable "Other" category be used if one, the
>     category lists a number of items that falls below a particular
>     number of standard deviations from the mean number of items per
>     categorization; and two, the items within the categories that meet
>     this condition can be populated as a whole to be within the
>     particular number of standard deviations.
>
>     Would this be a good idea?
>     _______________________________________________
>     Usability mailing list
>     Usability gnome org <mailto:Usability gnome org>
>     http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability