Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#31

Post by Jkeg »

thought_alarm wrote: post #28
Jkeg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, because there's nothing to play. There's nothing there to play because "pause" irrationally became "stop" for no apparent reason (remember there's no playlist in sight), and the user accidentally pressed it. There's no reason for it to be this way. Why shouldn't the play button apply to songs, especially when it was played individually and not as a playlist? Seems like the type of thing a music player should…

The Previous, Play, and Next buttons apply to the screen you are currently viewing. They work just the same in the store as they do on any other iTunes screen.

The way they work is exactly the problem. Considering there's a lot you can do in iTunes, it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing, as for example, Windows Media Player. The current behavior is confusing and pointless.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#33

Post by thought_alarm »

Jkeg wrote: post #31
thought_alarm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Previous, Play, and Next buttons apply to the screen you are currently viewing. They work just the same in the store as they do on any other iTunes screen.

The way they work is exactly the problem. Considering there's a lot you can do in iTunes, it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing, as for example, Windows Media Player. The current behavior is confusing and pointless.

You are forgetting these iTunes use cases:

- Select a track and push Play.

- Select an album and push Play.

- Select a playlist and push Play.

- Select iTunes DJ and push Play.

These are fundamental to iTunes. It is neither confusing nor pointless.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#34

Post by thought_alarm »

sprout wrote: post #22
thought_alarm wrote: post #5

They've used that same headline to describe that last 5 iTunes releases. There is a big difference between usability and artistic sensibility. Ultimately, some people just have a difficult time reacting to change. iTunes 10 was released only two days ago. Why not let it sink in for a while?

Because iTunes is a bloated moneymaking machine that has had very little thought put into UX since the store took off?

We get it. You don't understand iTunes.

I have a saying: Never ask a computer geek for music advice. They'll always give you a stupid answer.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#35

Post by Jkeg »

Jkeg wrote: post #31
thought_alarm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Previous, Play, and Next buttons apply to the screen you are currently viewing. They work just the same in the store as they do on any other iTunes screen.

The way they work is exactly the problem. Considering there's a lot you can do in iTunes, it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing, as for example, Windows Media Player. The current behavior is confusing and pointless.

>You are forgetting these iTunes use cases:

None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes, why would they be? In fact, deliberately selecting something and choosing specifically what to do with it fits perfectly with the "Have the control buttons control items you select or can only be one other possible item" method.

If the behavior isn't confusing, then why does it stop the track, but not let you restart it, even though there's nothing else to control? That is perfectly described as pointless and confusing.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#36

Post by matthew-wegner »

astrange wrote: post #11
kaffeinecoma wrote: post #10

Since upgrading to 10, all my music sounds flat and tinny. I have an audio cable running from my Mac Pro into my stereo. If I play a song via iTunes, it sounds like crap. If I plug the cable into my iPhone and play the same song, it sounds fine. Anyone else experiencing this?

Check the equalizer setting?

Check Preferences -> Playback -> Sound Enhancer, too.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#37

Post by thought_alarm »

Jkeg wrote: post #35
Jkeg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way they work is exactly the problem. Considering there's a lot you can do in iTunes, it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing, as for example, Windows Media Player. The current behavior is confusing and pointless.

>You are forgetting these iTunes use cases: None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes, why would they be? In fact, deliberately selecting something and choosing specifically what to do with it fits perfectly with the "Have the control buttons control items you select or can only be one other possible item" method. If the behavior isn't confusing, then why does it stop the tr…

> None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes

Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent.

However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: "it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing".

Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes works. (You also need to learn how to reply to the correct comment)

It's very easy: The playback controls "always" apply to the playlist you are viewing. If you want to get back to the currently-playing playlist, click the little back-arrow in the right-hand side of the main display. You can't get more consistent than that.

You can also click the "Now Playing" window and that will also give you controls for the current playlist.

It's very easy.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#38

Post by Jkeg »

thought_alarm wrote: post #37
Jkeg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are forgetting these iTunes use cases: None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes, why would they be? In fact, deliberately selecting something and choosing specifically what to do with it fits perfectly with the "Have the control buttons control items you select or can only be one other possible item" method. If the behavior isn't confusing, then why does it stop the tr…

> None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent. However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: "it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing". Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes…

>Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent.

What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality when not necessary? That is not consistent, and it's poor usability.

> However, those things are contrary to your suggestion:

No. Browsing around non-playlist-determining sections of iTunes does not imply I want to change or stop a playlist/track. So why remove the pause function, if the only reason to do that is so you can start a new playlist?

>It's very easy: The playback controls "always" apply to the playlist you are viewing.

Which is of no use to anyone if they aren't viewing a play list at all. Really, this was established in my very first comment. It's the iTunes store. There is no playlist to play other than the one I selected to play in the first place. Why exactly prevent me from pausing, when there's just no reason that would be helpful. You still haven't answered this.

> It's very easy.

Multiple clicks/mouse positionings are never easier than just one. Never.

> Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes works.

That's sort of pointless to claim. You haven't proven anything, so such grand pronouncements as to someones general comprehension of the issue are useless to everyone. I suggest you prove your point with a specific argument, instead of making unsupported assertions, basically that amounts to "You're just wrong." That's never really a help to a discussion.

>(You also need to learn how to reply to the correct comment)

And no, I already know which comment to reply to, but the link simply wasn't there. I suppose you think, as with the iTunes issue, that software always works perfectly.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#39

Post by thought_alarm »

Jkeg wrote: post #38
thought_alarm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent. However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: "it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing". Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes…

>Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent. What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality when not necessary? That is not consistent, and it's poor usability. > However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: No. Browsing around non-playlist-determining sections of iTunes does not imply I want to change or stop a playlist/track. So why remove the paus…

> What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.

I've lost track of how many times this has been repeated: The main playback controls apply to the content in the main window. It only seems arbitrary because you don't understand how iTunes works. I've offered suggestions in good faith, but you clearly aren't willing to listen.

Re: ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices

#40

Post by Jkeg »

Jkeg wrote: post #38
thought_alarm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent. However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: "it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing". Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes…

>Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent. What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality when not necessary? That is not consistent, and it's poor usability. > However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: No. Browsing around non-playlist-determining sections of iTunes does not imply I want to change or stop a playlist/track. So why remove the paus…

>The main playback controls apply to the content in the main window.

First of all, that's wrong. You are able to stop a track in the iTunes store, so you can control media items from other areas of the program while browsing. You just can't pause, even though there are no new playlists to start in the iTunes store. So since you can't do anything with the stop/play button other than control the current track in the iTunes store, there remains a lack of explanation as to why I can't just pause a simple track while browsing iTunes.

Again, to simplify, the issue really is just this: "why can't there be pause functionality in iTunes store? What would it prevent? Why would it be better to keep just the 'stop' function?" If you can't answer that then you have no argument.

Post reply on HN