New Columns

[LittleBiG]

When I wanted to search by an extra tag, first I looked at the Tags tab... It is the most logical place to be, the name of the feature suggests that. Additionally, the "Search everywhere" option is also there.

[TheQwerty]

Please, this upload is just for playing around. Don't post ideas yet, because I still have a list of things here that I will implement in the next days. I will you tell when I have finished my part... then you can go hunting...

OK, done. From my POV Extra Tags is finished. You can now tell me how you like it.

You've released the hounds!

Wishes:

1) Caption support for the location type.

2) Remove Data option for Checkbox type - comparable to Rating's Not Rated.

3) For Date Type:
    a) Add CEC option so it can be just a date or time, instead of forcing both.
    b) Add CEC option to specify its own format. (This would actually remove need for a.)
    b) For dates it would be really useful to have a calendar availabe in the edit option (just as it would in the Properties IP).

4) Combine Rating Stars and Number types into a Range type.
    a) Add CEC option to define a more specific type:
        i) Stars: 1-5
        ii) Progress Bar: 0-100, instead of number options Increment/Decrement by 10.
        iii) Percent: Same as progress bar but value is shown as a number instead of progress bar.
        iv) Integer: MIN_INT-MAX_INT, instead of number options Increment/Decrement by 1.
        v) Number: MIN_DOUBLE-MAX_DOUBLE, not sure increment/decrement make sense here.
    b) Add CEC option to define default value.
    c) Edit Options
        i) Increment/Decrement (as mentioned above)
        ii) Set to Default
    d) This could eventually be expanded so that the minimum, maximum, and increment/decrement values are user definable.

5) A way to view an items extra data within the IP.

I think that's enough for now...


EDIT: I lied...

6) Finish Report SC templates:
Location types should allow additional parameter to choose between caption or location.
Range types should accept |-separated list, with the value being used to GetTokens. (In case of percent/progress it would be nice if it recognized that a list of 10 items should use the ranges 0-10 for item 1, 11-20 for item 2, etc.)

7) Add support in <Get> variable: <Get Extra # [Report-Template-Args]>
Allowing the extra columns to be shown in status bar 3 and supporting the customization options in the Report templates.

[admin]

Ok, thanks. I will first publish the current state which I think is already very nice. Later (maybe) the complications...

[LittleBiG]

1) Caption support for the location type.

Absolutely. Now it is not too nice.

2) Remove Data option for Checkbox type - comparable to Rating's Not Rated.

I can agree, but with an additional wish: in case of "not set yet", the checkbox should be drawn in gray.

[TheQwerty]

Ok, thanks. I will first publish the current state which I think is already very nice. Later (maybe) the complications...

I expected this, but please re-consider adding items 1 and 2 before releasing. Both are important enough that I'd consider their exclusion a

[admin]

2) Remove Data option for Checkbox type - comparable to Rating's Not Rated.

Why?

[LittleBiG]

2) Remove Data option for Checkbox type - comparable to Rating's Not Rated.

Why?

With my visual suggestion it makes sense. Thinking about a possible example, we could answer this question by the checkbox type: shoud I keep this file refreshed? Yes/No/NotDecidedYet(DontKnowYet).
ADDITION: if only the "yes" matters (as it is now, because there is no difference between no and empty), so we just want to collect files, we can do it also by labels. But my suggestion can be a real improvement.

[admin]

Yes, but currently there is just a checkbox: On/Off, 2 states. More in phase 2.

[TheQwerty]

2) Remove Data option for Checkbox type - comparable to Rating's Not Rated.

Why?

1) There is a difference between No and Not Set, even if you do not show it visually.
2) Without a way to mark items as Not Set it is more difficult to remove them from tag.dat.
3) I (silently) agreed with calude that showing an empty checkbox for No and Not Set isn't ideal - though I let you sway my opinion into a "wait and see", especially given that Microsoft recommends against using a mixed-state checkbox as a third state and I could not think of a better alternative.
4) Consistency with the rest of the types.

[LittleBiG]

I want to point out, that the behaviour of the normal list checkbox and the checkbox type are not the same on double-click. Shouldn't be uniform?

[Filehero]

Hi Don,

I'm not sure wether I will use the new extra tags a lot (just keeping my images and music meta-info properly administered and up-to-date is sometimes more work than I actually like to do), but I think phase 1 has brought a really nice new feature set to existing and future users.

Q: Is the rating type type meant to be set bei RMDright click only? Intuitively I just tried to drag my rating in. Sorry, if this has been asked already, to much work ...


Cheers,
Filehero

[admin]

Thanks.

I'm not convinced to change anything with the checkbox type. I don't see any problem with it as it is. It is simple and works as expected. Let's keep it like that.

[TheQwerty]

My closing argument...

Frankly, I find the lack of "Remove Data" or "Not Set" makes things more complicated.

It's not very intuitive to a user that they'll have to search for ex1:!1 to get the items which the list clumps together and displays as empty boxes.

A user who decides to use these fields in a manner which eventually leads to unchecking many many items is unlikely to realize their tag.dat is being littered with all those 'No' items. Maybe that eventually leads to XY feeling slow and sluggish. They aren't going to enjoy removing those items one by one in List Management or risk possibly corrupting tag.dat by editing it in something else. Maybe they'll get lucky and realize a script could clean things, but maybe they'll be using the free edition.

The user who makes extensive use of other column types before finding a use for checkboxes is not going to agree that it "works as expected" when they discover that unlike the others there is no easy way to 'Not Set' or 'Remove Data' for checkboxes.

I cannot imagine the code is complicated, you have it for all the other types.

It doesn't add more work for translators beyond what ET already adds.

If anything the argument could be made that not having that option makes more documentation as you should be pointing out that 'No' items are stored in tag.dat even though the column makes them appear just like 'Not Set'.



I see no downside to adding a 'Remove Data' or 'Not Set' edit option and plenty of upside.

[admin]

OK, you finally convinced me. The main point for me is that unchecking the box should empty the data (and remove the item from the DB if there are no other tags assigned to it).

I will adjust the data to the display: Unchecked <=> Nothing; Checked <=> Not nothing.

1) That means I will have to do something weird (namely silently convert it to ex1:!"") to make a search term ex1:1 also match a value of "2" (which could have entered the DB in various ways), but all in all it's the better solution.
2) It also means that in the next version a value of "0" will be shown as checked/Yes. But this problem appears only for upgraders from the last beta versions.

[LittleBiG]

Ok, thanks. I will first publish the current state which I think is already very nice. Later (maybe) the complications...

I expected this, but please re-consider adding items 1 and 2 before releasing. Both are important enough that I'd consider their exclusion a

Regarding the 1, I realized that aliases work well. So we can live without caption.