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

[Jacob Beauregard <jake13jake comcast net>]

I'm trying to state the reasons as to why browsing in music players is 
frustrating in its current state, and stating ideas as to how the 
experience can be improved.

Two use cases I can think of off the top of my head:

I'm having a party in my dorm room and my friend Caitlin wants to know 
what kind of music I have on my computer. Because it's unfamiliar 
territory, she would most likely opt to browse.

I don't know exactly what kind of music I'm in the mood for, so I opt to 
browse.

Kirk Bridger wrote:
> I certainly understand the differences and I don't pretend to think 
> that they're not both useful. What I don't get is how the use cases of 
> a music player need browsing. Maybe I have so many titles I stopped 
> browsing a long time ago and only use directed searches now to find 
> things, but I'd love to hear some scenarios or use cases for browsing.
>
> I tried using Exaile and they have the tree interface for browsing, 
> which I ended up finding more frustrating than anything.
>
> Searching use cases I can think of:
>
> 1 - play specific song/album/artist
> 2 - create playlist of specific songs
> 3 - check details of specific file
>
> It sounds like there's something I'm missing about what tasks the user 
> would be doing where browsing provides the best interface. In terms of 
> an aggregator - I find browsing in that sense useful only when I don't 
> know what I have to browse. The feeds are giving me things I don't 
> already have. Browsing my music collection won't have me discovering 
> new songs because I already know what's in my collection.
>
> Unless we're looking at some interface to other people's songs, or a 
> discovery-type use case?
>
> Thanks for helping me understand,
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
> Jacob Beauregard wrote:
> > I thought I had differentiated searching vs. browsing, but I'll give 
> > it another go:
> >
> > Think of the different reasons you'd use an aggregator (del.icio.us, 
> > digg, reddit, slashdot aggregators) as opposed to using a search 
> > engine (google, yahoo, live searches).
> >
> > In essence, searching is active, requiring direct input from the user.
> > Meanwhile, browsing is passive, requiring no direct input from the user.
> >
> > Each one takes a different mindset because searching has a narrow 
> > focus and browsing has a contextual focus. As a result, they are very 
> > different experiences.
> >
> > Here's a brief article that notes some differences.
> > http://powazek.com/2005/01/000484.html
> >
> > What I'm trying to get at is that both are useful, but they don't 
> > have the same reasons for being useful (i.e. search capabilities do 
> > not void the need for browsing capabilities).
> >
> > Kirk Bridger wrote:
> > > There is obviously a lot of thought behind these comments, but I 
> > > really am confused as to what the actual use case here is. What does 
> > > the user want to do that searching doesn't accomplish?
> > >
> > > Sorry to appear so daft, but it feels like I would like to 
> > > contribute but am just not grasping what the problem and use case are.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Usability mailing list
> > > Usability gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Usability mailing list
> > Usability gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability