On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Jacob Beauregard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alright, so the clearest example of problems in regards to category > management is in Rhythmbox, where songs are categorized by Album and Artist. > > I'll precede this by saying, effective categorization requires the > minimization of the number of categories that contain very few items > without browsing becoming increasingly difficult. > > For instance, one doesn't categorize books solely by name in a library. > > With that said, there is a problem with the categorization method that > Rhythmbox uses. When one categorizes by Artist, and a large number of > artists have few unique tracks, it no longer proves an effective method of > categorization. The same could be said for Albums that are singles or have > very few tracks. > > This makes browsing extremely difficult; most users will thus default to > using the search bar. However, browsing is just as important as filtering > due to the factor of greater visibility. It's just like using an aggregator > vs. using a search engine. They both serve their purposes, and one should be > able to use either effectively. > > I would propose for _any_ kind of populated categorization first to require > that an expandable "Other" category be used if one, the category lists a > number of items that falls below a particular number of standard deviations > from the mean number of items per categorization; and two, the items within > the categories that meet this condition can be populated as a whole to be > within the particular number of standard deviations.
I think the best categorization technique is one that is predictable and conforms to users' expectations. This fits well with what I've observed in watching users. Their productivity improves as their familiarity with a system increases. Therefore a categorization technique that changes the way it works to optimize the display will result in poor usability. So if you normally go looking for a particular song/album/artist under "other" (which is illogical, because "other" makes no sense) and then they change because you add another song to your library from the same artist/album/genre and they're no longer in "other" you'll get frustrated. The local library doesn't shelve books on a special shelf if the call number is particularly unpopulated. They still go in numerical order so that things are easy to find. My wife's spice rack is alphabetised. She doesn't re-order things just because she's low on thyme. You get the idea. I would say human efficiency is improved by predictability. For the record, I'm a big fan of usability testing. I get a little concerned any time smart people start saying things along the lines of, "I think usability will be improved if we..." Especially when particularly brilliant people start trying to make assumptions about what less brilliant people must be thinking as they use software. -- Matthew Nuzum newz2000 on freenode _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list Usability@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
