Track count in library...

[Carbon6]

Very useful and a welcome addition, but looks messy, and makes it hard to read at a glance.



I'd like to see the track count aligned to the right if possible, will improve the readability tenfold.

Keep up the great work

[paq]

I disagree. I would say there are situations where you benefit from right-aligning numbers making it look more like a table, but I don't think this is one of them. Since you're not actually looking for the genre/artist/etc with the most/least number of tracks, or want to sum the numbers together, then the numbers doesn't need to stand out.  Also, right-aligning the number could make people believe they can sort the the track browser columns by number of tracks.

And lastly, I think it can be difficult to achieve programming-wise.

[Zak]

Very useful and a welcome addition, but looks messy, and makes it hard to read at a glance.

I agree with this bit, and this has been on my wishlist for a while too.

Since you're not actually looking for the genre/artist/etc with the most/least number of tracks, or want to sum the numbers together, then the numbers doesn't need to stand out.

I disagree with this bit. Sometimes it is useful to see which artists, genres etc are most common.

Also, right-aligning the number could make people believe they can sort the the track browser columns by number of tracks.

And lastly, I think it can be difficult to achieve programming-wise.

These are both true, which is why it shouldn't be fixed by just right-aligning the numbers - the number should be shown in their own column, which would allow them to be sorted (not sure how that would work though, because you don't want to split the header row - right-click menu option perhaps?).

Here's what it would actually look like. I think it's much nicer:



Or even this:



Another possibility would be displaying track duration totals or file sizes.

[ma_t14]

+1 for Zak's mockups

[Roadrunner]

I'm more on paq's side, and have one more reason...: The wider the field is, the less fast you can see which number belongs to which element.

When nevertheless a right aligned solution will be implented, I would prefer the first of Zak's mockups (thx for those!), because the 2nd takes too much space.

[Carbon6]

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be able to tell which it is a reference to, considering most have a shaded stripe background every other line.

[Zak]

When nevertheless a right aligned solution will be implented, I would prefer the first of Zak's mockups (thx for those!), because the 2nd takes too much space.

In hindsight, while it looks good for the short example genres I used, including "tracks" next to longer artist and album titles would be wasteful if you're on a small screen or have narrow columns.

[Roadrunner]

I'm not sure how you wouldn't be able to tell which it is a reference to, considering most have a shaded stripe background every other line.

I haven't said, that I wouldn't be able to, but it is a difference between just to be able and to see it at a glance. Not all columns are so narrow as the examples.

Probably we have another point of view: First I look at the column value I'm currently interrested in and together with this, if it's worth to follow this path. You're probably more interrested in a statistic function. But then it would be necessary, as zak wrote, to be able to sort the column by number. By the way, this could be made possible by 3-times click on the header: 1st = name up, 2nd = name down, 3rd = number down.

[Zak]

By the way, this could be made possible by 3-times click on the header: 1st = name up, 2nd = name down, 3rd = number down.

Better would be to sort by the second column if a modifier key (Ctrl probably) is held down while clicking the column header. This would allow alternate sorting in ascending and descending order for both columns without forcing extra clicks on people who don't care about the second column.

[Roadrunner]

Better would be to sort by the second column if a modifier key (Ctrl probably) is held down while clicking the column header. This would allow alternate sorting in ascending and descending order for both columns without forcing extra clicks on people who don't care about the second column.

People who don't care, don't activate this option in the preferences (as far as I know, it's inactive by default) and for those shouldn't change anything. The Ctrl-function would just be another hidden function.

One advantage of the 3- (or 4-)times click would be, that you'll see the effect automatically: The appendix in the title could switch between "", "v", "^ (count)" (if really necessary) and "v (count)". In addition the numbers could but have not to be in a separate column at all, this could be implented in the current way of view, what I would prefer anyway (as told earlier).

[Zak]

The Ctrl-function would just be another hidden function.

"Hidden" is preferable to "You won't use this 99% of the time, but we're going to force you to do it 100% of the time."

Auto-DJ mode on the shuffle button is another example.

[Thorbjorn]

+1 for Zak's first suggestion

[Steven]

for now i have made the track count right aligned and you can sort by track count by clicking the right side of the track browser column.
I know its been requested to allow other things to be counted link duration but i will leave that to a later date if i revisit this

[Carbon6]

Excellent, thankyou Steven.

[Thorbjorn]

Great work! And for that other date, album count wold be very useful