First impressions, bugs and enhancement requests

[medwynd]

Finally got SMM installed last night and it went pretty flawlessly once I discovered where all the options are and what they do

I posted some bugs I found and some enhancement requests on the Google code page. I figured that was the best place to put enhancement requests that way even if you shoot down the idea people can see that it was requested and rejected already before they request it again.

Issues:
Movie name sizes in an incorrect manner - Issue 39
Scrolling issue when near the end of the list - Issue 40
When a cover grows it starts in different positions depending how you arrive at the movie - Issue 41
Empty quick filters list messes up scrolling - Issue 42
Wrapping from the end of the movie list to the beginning does not always make the jump - Issue 43

Enhancements:
Enhancement/Issue: When fast scrolling stop title name box from growing/shrinking - Issue 44
Enhancement: Be able to set cover size independently of spacing - Issue 45
Enhancement: Option to hide Disc #/Total Discs box - Issue 46
Enhancement: Option to remove title box and move it to the header at the top of the screen - Issue 47 (Sort of a double enhancement request if you let us remove the title box and have a configurable header bar )
Enhancement: Be able to choose starting position for rows in wall view - Issue 48

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by medwynd

Finally got SMM installed last night and it went pretty flawlessly once I discovered where all the options are and what they do

I posted some bugs I found and some enhancement requests on the Google code page. I figured that was the best place to put enhancement requests that way even if you shoot down the idea people can see that it was requested and rejected already before they request it again.

Issues:
Movie name sizes in an incorrect manner - Issue 39
Scrolling issue when near the end of the list - Issue 40
When a cover grows it starts in different positions depending how you arrive at the movie - Issue 41
Empty quick filters list messes up scrolling - Issue 42
Wrapping from the end of the movie list to the beginning does not always make the jump - Issue 43

Enhancements:
Enhancement/Issue: When fast scrolling stop title name box from growing/shrinking - Issue 44
Enhancement: Be able to set cover size independently of spacing - Issue 45
Enhancement: Option to hide Disc #/Total Discs box - Issue 46
Enhancement: Option to remove title box and move it to the header at the top of the screen - Issue 47 (Sort of a double enhancement request if you let us remove the title box and have a configurable header bar )
Enhancement: Be able to choose starting position for rows in wall view - Issue 48

Hate to say it but pretty much all over those are by design and are not errors.

Issue #39 This is how sage handles it and I have not control over it it looks fine to me and has never bother me
Issue #40 have no idea what you are even referring to your explanation did not make any sense to me sorry.
Issue #41 again not a issue when you are on edges it has to grow to a different location or the entire cover wouldn't be visible on the screen
issue #42 this is a known issue and is valid
issues #43 not a bug this is again by design. I chose to put blanks and add the extra scoll to get the point across you where at the end of the list. This probably will not change.

enhancement #44 not going to happen as that would require way to much core code changes to allow that.

enhancement #45 that is one in the same spaces=cover sizes there is no difference. When you adjust the spacing you are actually adjusting the covers sizes. If you are referring to the actual scaling (quality of the covers) then you do that via the scaling properties read the wiki.

enhancement #46 this is actually doable but don't know if it is worth the code it would take to remove that it has changed positions in the next build and is more visible.
enhancement #47 not going to happen. The top bar needs to be the current videos or drill down or you have not way of knowing what videos you are currently viewing.

enhancement #48 Lost me on this one not sure what you are really wanting


Again thanks for the feedback but allot of you are saying are issues are by design and some of it is the way the animation system works and is out of my control.

cheers

[medwynd]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

Hate to say it but pretty much all over those are by design and are not errors.

Yeah I had no real insight into what were design decisions or limitations of Sage so I just thought I would bring up whatever I ran across.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

Issue #40 have no idea what you are even referring to your explanation did not make any sense to me sorry.

I only have an extender and not a client license or I would take some screenshots. I'll see if I can take some pictures tomorrow.

I'll try to explain it more clearly though.
So you need an odd number of movies in your collection so that when you get to the end of the list you see one more movie in the top row than you do in the bottom row.

You need to do this with the settings I listed in the bug report which is basically wall view with full wall and more posters off.

Frequently when you are on the last item of the bottom row and move one movie to the right, the last item on the bottom row will stay selected instead of selecting the movie on the top row.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

issue #42 this is a known issue and is valid

Ah, I didn't see it on the bug page or missed it, sorry bout that.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

enhancement #45 that is one in the same spaces=cover sizes there is no difference. When you adjust the spacing you are actually adjusting the covers sizes. If you are referring to the actual scaling (quality of the covers) then you do that via the scaling properties read the wiki.

Thats what I figured was going on and why I listed it as an enhancement. I was requesting that basically you can not only adjust the size of the covers and as well as the spacing in between them.

So imagine viewing the the full wall by default where the covers are all 100%. In this configuration the covers are all butted up against each other edge to edge.

By adjusting the spacing I am suggesting that you would still be viewing the covers at the size they are displayed above but are adding space between them so they do not butt up against each other in an edge to edge fashion.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

enhancement #46 this is actually doable but don't know if it is worth the code it would take to remove that it has changed positions in the next build and is more visible.

This isn't so much of an issue now that I found the feature, i forget what you call it off the top of my head, that moves the cover down to the lower left and makes all the other movies disappear. I actually quite like the way that feature works and it looks great.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

enhancement #47 not going to happen. The top bar needs to be the current videos or drill down or you have not way of knowing what videos you are currently viewing.

I always view my full list of movies and never use drill downs or anything like that so I guess I never considered that people use those features often. My library is only a couple of hundred movies big so I always view all the movies all the time.

Hope the explanations were a bit clearer this time. If not I'll give it another go

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by medwynd

Yeah I had no real insight into what were design decisions or limitations of Sage so I just thought I would bring up whatever I ran across.


I only have an extender and not a client license or I would take some screenshots. I'll see if I can take some pictures tomorrow.

I'll try to explain it more clearly though.
So you need an odd number of movies in your collection so that when you get to the end of the list you see one more movie in the top row than you do in the bottom row.

You need to do this with the settings I listed in the bug report which is basically wall view with full wall and more posters off.

Frequently when you are on the last item of the bottom row and move one movie to the right, the last item on the bottom row will stay selected instead of selecting the movie on the top row.

Which way is your scrolling? Vertical or horizontal? I think what you are referring to is the the fact the wall scrolls one more time before gaining focus but not sure.

Originally Posted by medwynd

Thats what I figured was going on and why I listed it as an enhancement. I was requesting that basically you can not only adjust the size of the covers and as well as the spacing in between them.

So imagine viewing the the full wall by default where the covers are all 100%. In this configuration the covers are all butted up against each other edge to edge.

By adjusting the spacing I am suggesting that you would still be viewing the covers at the size they are displayed above but are adding space between them so they do not butt up against each other in an edge to edge fashion.

Maybe I am lost here but that is one and the same the space and size of the covers are adjusting the same property the same effect/ look would happen regardless of which you are adjusting.

Originally Posted by medwynd

I always view my full list of movies and never use drill downs or anything like that so I guess I never considered that people use those features often. My library is only a couple of hundred movies big so I always view all the movies all the time.

I will try and see what I can do to accommodate that request in a future build.

[medwynd]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

Maybe I am lost here but that is one and the same the space and size of the covers are adjusting the same property the same effect/ look would happen regardless of which you are adjusting.

Here I made a mockup to show what I'm talking about, maybe this will make more sense

100% Cover size, 0 spacing (current default)


100% Cover size, 10 pixel spacing between covers
Coversize is same as the default but with spacing between it



75% Cover size, 0 spacing
Covers are smaller (hence more are viewable) but are butted up against each others edges


75% Cover size, 10 pixel spacing between covers
Again covers are smalle but have some spacing between them

[PLUCKYHD]

Okay I am with you know but that is not going to be possible for two reasons.

1. As you can see in your example the covers would get quite distorted from the default aspect ratio. Although SMM doesn't not keep the default aspect ratio is was coded with all of them pretty darn close on a 16x9 tv. As you made them bigger (which is what you would have to do to accommodate your request
distortion would get really bad and look terrible on extenders

2. In a essence all you are doing there is changing he number or rows/or columns on the screen that are visible requiring the others to become bigger to take up the same space. Do to the fixed focus coding that is in place it would have to become way more dynamic than it already is to stop focus from going to offscreen or partially visible covers.

It was coded with good deal of flexibility (full wall/more posters) and changing what you are wanting is really allowing full modification of rows/columns or individual cell sizes being allowed to grow greater than 1.0. This would require a huge undertaking and change in my core UI code and I don't see the benefit of allowing users to distort the covers out that far of their original aspect ratio

cheers

[medwynd]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

Okay I am with you know but that is not going to be possible for two reasons.

Well at least it was clear this time

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

1. As you can see in your example the covers would get quite distorted from the default aspect ratio. Although SMM doesn't not keep the default aspect ratio is was coded with all of them pretty darn close on a 16x9 tv. As you made them bigger (which is what you would have to do to accommodate your request
distortion would get really bad and look terrible on extenders

That's mostly just me having sage set at a weird resolution when I grabbed the screenshots

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

2. In a essence all you are doing there is changing he number or rows/or columns on the screen that are visible requiring the others to become bigger to take up the same space. Do to the fixed focus coding that is in place it would have to become way more dynamic than it already is to stop focus from going to offscreen or partially visible covers.

I figured that was probably the case since there appears to be a fixed number of cells. Thought I would throw it out there anyways.