English > Feature Suggestions

Split information gathering and user interaction...

<< < (2/3) > >>

rick.ca:
I'm sorry, I just don't buy this as a valid problem definition. If 80% of items are updated in Silent Mode, then your concern only applies to situations where hundreds of items are being updated at a time. For most users, this is only encountered when initially building a database. It's not worth the development effort to add a feature that's merely a one-time convenience for most users. Especially if would be at odds with the normal, everyday use of the program. 

If the problem originates in the fact nowhere near 80% of items are being updated in Silent Mode, then there must be something else wrong. Maybe the file scanner is not configured properly, or further refinements to that function are required. Maybe there should be a option to download the top x posters so you don't have to choose (instead, you could view the actual posters, select the one to display, and/or delete the ones you don't want). And then there's the situation I mentioned before—where the user can't resolve the ambiguity either. Deferring the action risks obscuring the issue from the user. For example, it there's no poster, there's no poster. I would rather know this immediately, so I have the option of finding one by other means while the update continues to run, or bookmark it for doing so later. These are things I may not be able to do while running a routine such as you describe. And even if I could, that would just make the whole process more problematic and confusing.

Can you elaborate on the conditions that result in you having an intolerable number of items requiring user interaction?

raldo:

--- Quote from: rick.ca on July 21, 2009, 09:34:26 pm ---I'm sorry, I just don't buy this as a valid problem definition. If 80% of items are updated in Silent Mode, then your concern only applies to situations where hundreds of items are being updated at a time.

--- End quote ---
I'd say the definition of the problem is valid because it holds as long as more than one file needs to be disambiguated, no matter how many files there are altogether.


--- Quote from: rick.ca on July 21, 2009, 09:34:26 pm ---For most users, this is only encountered when initially building a database. It's not worth the development effort to add a feature that's merely a one-time convenience for most users. Especially if would be at odds with the normal, everyday use of the program. 

--- End quote ---

It's not at odds with any use of the program.


--- Quote from: rick.ca on July 21, 2009, 09:34:26 pm ---If the problem originates in the fact nowhere near 80% of items are being updated in Silent Mode, then there must be something else wrong. Maybe the file scanner is not configured properly, or further refinements to that function are required. Maybe there should be a option to download the top x posters so you don't have to choose (instead, you could view the actual posters, select the one to display, and/or delete the ones you don't want). And then there's the situation I mentioned before—where the user can't resolve the ambiguity either. Deferring the action risks obscuring the issue from the user. For example, it there's no poster, there's no poster. I would rather know this immediately, so I have the option of finding one by other means while the update continues to run, or bookmark it for doing so later. These are things I may not be able to do while running a routine such as you describe. And even if I could, that would just make the whole process more problematic and confusing.

--- End quote ---

I'm not suggesting auto selection of posters or whatnot.


--- Quote from: rick.ca on July 21, 2009, 09:34:26 pm ---Can you elaborate on the conditions that result in you having an intolerable number of items requiring user interaction?

--- End quote ---

I described this in the first post.

If I am a new user and select all my 500 movies for update, I'd rather do the selections with as little as possible timegap inbetween each movie.

If I am an experienced user and I add, say, 10 movies, I'd prefer not to wait between, say, 2 disambiguations.

rick.ca:

--- Quote ---It's not at odds with any use of the program.
--- End quote ---

It is if adds unnecessary complexity, invites confusion about it's proper use, and/or increases the risk of error.


--- Quote ---I'm not suggesting auto selection of posters or whatnot.
--- End quote ---

I know you're not—that's my point. There may be other improvements that would be of wider benefit and substantially reduce the need for this.


--- Quote ---If I am a new user and select all my 500 movies for update...
--- End quote ---

Use Silent Mode.


--- Quote ---If I am an experienced user and I add, say, 10 movies, I'd prefer not to wait between, say, 2 disambiguations.
--- End quote ---

This actually makes more sense to me than your original case, which involved "a large list of movies." Turning on Silent Mode for a handful of movies is pointless. But deferring those that require user interaction to the end of the batch might be helpful. I assume your idea includes saving whatever has been downloaded (e.g., search results page, post thumbnails, etc.) so that doesn't have to be done again. Once in this interactive mode, however, I see no point in deferring a download which is normally takes only seconds anyway.

raldo:

--- Quote from: rick.ca on July 22, 2009, 04:20:28 am ---It is if adds unnecessary complexity, invites confusion about it's proper use, and/or increases the risk of error.

--- End quote ---

Why would it do any of these things?

I'm just saying that when not using silent mode, the code shall wait until after alternatives have been mined, pose all the questions to the user, and then do the data download.

This shouldn't necessarily change the code structure much.

For me, such a change in progress would be gold, both for a few files and for many files. I think this would be good for new users to.

rick.ca:

--- Quote ---Why would it do any of these things?
--- End quote ---

This conversation suggests it has the potential to be all these things. ::)

If this were simply a matter of deferring necessary user interaction to the end of the batch, with no deferral of the download once an ambiguity is resolved by the user, I wouldn't be too concerned about such things. But I still have questions. How would the program handle error conditions? Something like the site not being available should obviously result in the user being able to abort the batch immediately. But what about error conditions that might be difficult to distinguish from the kind of user interaction you're thinking about. I don't think any user would be happy about waiting for the whole batch to be processed, only to find (due to some problem they were not aware of) that every item is requires interaction.

I really don't think this would be appropriate for large batches. I doesn't make sense to run an overnight update of 500 with the idea the user will be willing and able to resolve an interminable number of ambiguities in the morning. It makes more sense to evaluate the results and then decide what the next step should be and how to best carry it out.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page