[Empeg-general] Re: When is playlist sorting going to be fixed?

borislav@empegbbs-noreply.merlins.org borislav@empegbbs-noreply.merlins.org
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:19:00 GMT


> Oh no, you have to press one or two arrow keys.

But it _is_ the end of the world! ;-) The point is that that all the keys on the remote are the same size and shape so you can't tell which one is which without looking at it. So imagine that you have a J-J-K-K-L-L playlist and you want to go to the second L. Currently you do this:

1. look at the remote
2. put finger on '5'
3. look at the player
4. press '5' three times
5. look at the remote
6. put finger on '>>'
7. look at the player
8. press '>>' once

With the proposed change:

1. look at the remote
2. put finger '5'
3. look at the player
4. press '5' six times

Time it and tell me which one is faster. Now time it again in the dark.

> Just imagine that your plan has been implemented, and I keep my artist playlists in the exact same order they are now. Now I have to cycle through every J list and every K list as well. That's not much of a shortcut.

Depends on how you count (see above). I agree, though, if you have a lot of Js and Ks and you always want to get to the first L, the current scheme works better for you.

How would you feel about this: new option per playlist - "display in play order", defaulting to off. Shortcuts in alphabetical lists work as they do now. Shortcuts in play-order lists work in the proposed way. In other words, no surprises if you are used to the current behaviour.

Before you completely reject this, consider how shortcuts work in playlists containing just tunes. Hint - they don't. And I hope you don't suggest we display those in alphabetical order too...

> you can just name those lists with a ~ at the beggining of them

Yup, I've considered doing something like that. For a while I had my albums prefixed by the year to keep them in chronological order but scrapped that - it was wasting precious real estate (some names are already too long &:*), see top wish 3). Anyway, why use a hack when we can have it work properly :-).

Best wishes,
Borislav