Attached is a mockup of an idea that I came up with to simplify the playlist toolbar. The user would click the "Manage Playlist" button, which would provide a menu of playlist functions. The user would scroll through the functions using the mouse or arrow keys. Comments, suggestions?<br>
<br>- Lee<br> <br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Leo Franchi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfranchi@kde.org">lfranchi@kde.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Jun 29, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Nikolaj Hald Nielsen wrote:<br>
<br>
> I went over it again and tested a bit around and I am even less<br>
> convinced about the real usability of your addition today.<br>
><br>
> Which is fair, I am still trying to make up my own mind as well! :-)<br>
><br>
> 1. It adds unnecessary complexion to the existing Amarok. Especially<br>
> with the "symmetry" you added, we find ourselves with arrows that do<br>
> precisely nothing on the left and which are not intuitive on the right<br>
> neither.<br>
><br>
> Yes. That was the very last thing I added. Again just to try stuff<br>
> out.<br>
><br>
> 2. It is just plain ugly, sorry to be that blunt, but those green<br>
> arrows have always been ugly, wherever they were.<br>
><br>
> Sorry, but I am not even going to argue against this. The green<br>
> arrows was just the only icons I could find at the time ( had no<br>
> Internet access when I created this stuff ) that sort of illustrated<br>
> the point. I have no special love of these and would happily replace<br>
> them with something else, perhaps something similar to the "more"<br>
> icon used in the bracrumb...<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>If the issue here is the design of the arrows themselves, it might<br>
make some sense to talk to nuno or lee about designing different ones?<br>
Rather than just tossing out the whole feature due to some arrow design.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> 3. Adding those arrows everywhere for the sake of symmetry means also<br>
> we will have to add a function to all the existing arrows, and this<br>
> adds again more unnecessary complexity and we will have to invent new<br>
> items to add, just because there are folding arrows? Come on, this<br>
> makes absolutely no sense.<br>
><br>
> No, the idea was that an arrow could be disabled (but still visible)<br>
> when there was no items. But when browsing through the categories<br>
> this would allow items to be there or not without changing the<br>
> layout and hence the symmetry. At least that was the though I wanted<br>
> to try out.<br>
><br>
> I strongly vote against these folding arrows and suggest to remove<br>
> those everywhere, including the context view. I am sure we can find an<br>
> alternative way to add applets<br>
><br>
> In the context view? Oh, the scrolling list has them... I am not<br>
> taking responsibility for those! :-P<br>
<br>
</div>It is very easy to rail against something that no one has<br>
<br>
a) made any comments to me about<br>
b) had any ideas for improvements<br>
c) provided any sort of alternative artwork<br>
<br>
(note that we have used those arrows since January, and there has been<br>
little to no feedback about them).<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> I am quite disappointed, Amarok started to look nice and now it begins<br>
> to suck again, complexity everywhere just because we listen to every<br>
> fart the users come up with, and no, I am not sorry about the wording.<br>
> Already the playlist options are too many, and the realisation doesn't<br>
> fit in the general aspect, as we have now non less than 5 different<br>
> menus, dropdown selectors, option choosers and tool boxes for the<br>
> playlist alone!<br>
><br>
> Sorry, I think you are on a wrong path here, please, make it easier,<br>
> not more complex. I think we need an extensive discussion about the<br>
> playlist in Gran Canaria before you even add more stuff, consensus<br>
> first!<br>
><br>
> Ok, now we are getting to the meat of the issue.<br>
><br>
> We are currently miles away from any kind of a release and this is<br>
> exactly the time to try out new stuff. I have no issue discussing<br>
> and even removing any of this stuff is that is the consensus, but I<br>
> don't want to do this discussions in a vacuum, without having an<br>
> actual prototype to play with, hence I committed it. I hate trying<br>
> to figure out what will work and what will not as a pure though<br>
> experiment, hence I always prototype stuff and accept the bruises if<br>
> people tell me that it's pure crap. (contrary to legend, I am not<br>
> always right... :-)<br>
><br>
> In the course of developing 2.0.0 we tried out a lot of stuff that<br>
> never made it into the final 2.0.0, but we learned a lot about what<br>
> worked and what did not in the process. This is the only sane way to<br>
> do development of something as complex as amarok in my oppinion.<br>
> Come feature freeze we should have decided what works and what does<br>
> not and the experimentation should be over. As you yourself say,<br>
> your oppinion changes as you play with it, something that would not<br>
> happen if we just discussed it as a theoretical change on a<br>
> blackboard.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I totally agree with Nikolaj here. It is impossible to achieve<br>
consensus on a "new feature" via mailing-list or IRC before beginning<br>
to code. Putting aside the fact that maybe about 50% (if even) of<br>
interested parties actually respond to any given email, consensus<br>
requires much time AND a willingness to hunt down people for a<br>
response (i have unfortunately done way too much of this in the last 8<br>
months).<br>
<br>
Playing around with Amarok in svn, given that we have many months<br>
before release, is an effective way of sharing an idea and soliciting<br>
comments. As we have just seen, it immediately starts a conversation<br>
when people feel strongly about it---and that to me seems to be<br>
exactly the point.<br>
<br>
Our upcoming meeting in GC is a perfect way to leap forward in terms<br>
of future plans/layouts/etc, like in Berlin, but I strongly disagree<br>
with putting off changes until we have a chance to talk them over all<br>
together. Way less would get done, and it would simply be demotivating<br>
imho.<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
<font color="#888888">leo<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Amarok-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Amarok-devel@kde.org">Amarok-devel@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>