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

[Jacob Beauregard <jake13jake comcast net>]

Correction in the last paragraph: I meant to say "particle" rather than 
"participle."

Jacob Beauregard wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability