chrisjj wrote:> or some other method in place that ensures that setting exceptions
> are part of the designed work flow and not merely an afterthought
So the UI can offer setting exceptions "part of the designed workflow". Where's the problem in that?
There is none, if it's designed properly.
> If you specify 1 Field for 1 Artist then MM *can* be a mind reader.
If you had to assign 1 artist to 1 field, then MM read your assignment, not your mind
It was your reference, not mine. The point is, with multi-field inputs, the *design* allows MM to read my assignment with or without setting separators and
without setting exceptions. 1 Field per Artist = No Guesswork Required.
> If you have Queen in 1 Field and David Bowie in 1 Field with a
> designated separator of '&' for parsing, MM knows it's 2 Artists.
Manually split upon input?
In a multi-field interface, it would be 1 Artist per field. In practice, manually splitting artists that are pulled into a single field is a lot less of a hassle than upkeeping an additional list of exceptions. I do it all the time now and it fits easily into the work flow, on new adds. See below for more.
Every occurence of "Queen & David Bowie"??
Yes, every occurrence of Queen & David Bowie = 2 Artists (in my library). I can see the concern in how to transfer the existing data to the new methodology and frankly, this is going to be a concern no matter what the new input is. Everyone will have to adapt their data to it. Going forward, it will (hopefully) be a much more streamlined and defined system than it is now.
> I'm not against the method you propose but I don't want to have to
> be maintaining other exception tables in addition to editing tags.
OK, but so far the editing tag solution is less ergonomic that the editing exceptions solution.
Not really. As it is now, I only have to enter artists once. There is no place to enter exceptions. But since there is no parsing translation of ';' within the current design, it's even easier than that: I enter artists as is without separators. Thus I have no multiple artists in my artist fields as far as MM is concerned. It may not be accurate but it is quick, easy, and it is read, reported and displayed properly. Set it and forget it.
Any new design must consider parsing methods as well as user input. It's not one or the other.
> There simply needs to be some mechanic by which a user can add
> multiple artists without being required to tell MM what to do with that
> data other than indicating ',', '&', 'feat.', 'vs.', etc.
Please do suggest one!
I have or haven't you been reading?
> Perhaps if you gave an "example" of how one would edit tags using
> your method,
1 In Options, set separator &
2 In Artist, enter "Queen & David Bowie" - 2 artists
3 In another enter Artist "Jam & Spoon" - 2 artists so far...
4 Hit hotkey to add to exceptions - 1 artist
5 In another enter Artist "Jam & Spoon" - 1 artist
So now I have to enter the artist twice. This is exactly what I was trying to prevent and likely what MoDementia was referring to by using a second form. Requiring the user to enter artists again to add them to another list is not good design.
> including where you envision this exception list to be
MM config files.
> and how it would be maintained (via what process)
As above, plus direct editing of the list in Options.
Again, double-entering data isn't the direction we really want to go, is it?
> I have my own idea about how this could be acceptably handled so that
> folks could keep their familiar "one field per tag" interface
Looking forward to hearing it!
A check box or radio button (so as not to confuse with the properties update marker) next to the field to add this artist to the exception list. When this option is set to true, MM simply copies the artist name *as is* from the field and pastes it into the exception list. This way separators could still be defined in advance via Options but users wouldn't have to double-edit. This might work but it wouldn't be my first choice.
Something comes to mind then using this method: What happens when bands collaborate and have all sorts of symbols already in their names? How do we define exceptions (or not) in those cases?
Jam & Spoon, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams & Sting, Dan Turèll + Halfdan E
A multi-field solution would prevent this from becoming an issue but that doesn't seem to be well-received.
