Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PICARD-978: Distinguish between unclustered unmatched files #619

Conversation

Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor

Calling it unclustered in the UI will help users to realise that they need to Cluster files, and in debug messages helps to distinguish between Unclustered files just loaded, and an album with Unmatched files.

https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/PICARD-978

…ed files

Calling it unclustered in the UI will help users to realise that
they need to Cluster files, and in debug messages helps to
distinguish between Unclustered files just loaded, and an album
with Unmatched files.
@Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor Author

Away for 2 weeks with email and web but no dev environment - other's can address review comments etc. or they can wait until I am back.

@mwiencek
Copy link
Member

mwiencek commented Feb 9, 2017

They don't need to be (or can't be) clustered when using scan or lookup on individual tracks, so this seems incorrect to me.

@Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor Author

They are equally as much unclustered as they are unmatched. But (in the absence of a UI which guides them) using the word clustered points novices to what they should try next. As I understand it, "How do I use Picard?" is the most common question asked.

@mwiencek
Copy link
Member

mwiencek commented Feb 9, 2017

They are equally as much unclustered as they are unmatched.

You could just as well say they are equally "unscanned." And I wonder what % of users are tagging complete albums, because clustering isn't as useful otherwise.

@Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sophist-UK commented Feb 10, 2017

Not sure that it is still the case, but most users USED to rip CDs so whole albums.

And yes you could equally say "unscanned" but clustering is the first thing people should try so we should IMO lead them in that direction.

@samj1912
Copy link
Collaborator

samj1912 commented Mar 5, 2017

IMO we should not merge this. We will be rethinking the UI with 2.0 anyways. The above might cause some confusion and seems incorrect.

@zas @mineo thoughts?

@Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor Author

As I said previously, this renaming is more important now than later - once we have a better UI it may not be needed, but right now with the 1.4 UI it will help people press the Cluster button.

@mineo
Copy link
Member

mineo commented Apr 21, 2017

I don't have a strong opinion for either name and also don't have any idea how many of our users use lookup directly, cluster first or scan directly. I fear however we phrase it, the name will be wrong for the other 2 use cases.

@Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor Author

If we are going to have a new UI for v2.0.0, then I agree with @samj1912 that we should close this unmerged.

@samj1912
Copy link
Collaborator

Still of the opinion that we should not merge this. Rather open up a UX ticket on Jira and rethink some of labels we use in Picard currently.

@Sophist-UK
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is a very small change. Why not merge this and see whether it helps.

As and when we revamp the UI in Picard 2 we can think again about this.

Copy link
Collaborator

@zas zas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are conflicts to fix, but i'm ok for it. That's mostly renaming.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Sophist-UK Sophist-UK left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Merge conflicts fixed.

@samj1912 samj1912 merged commit 9082889 into metabrainz:master Dec 16, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants