Favorites should be broken out in Theaters tab

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The placement of theater favorites at the top of both the Name or Distance
lists on the Theater tab goes against the intent of those lists.  There is
room at the top to add another segment named "Favorites".

An addition benefit of a dedicated Favorites list is that you can implent
the standard iPhone list edit mode where items can be removed from the list
(red delete icon), and more importantly, items in the list an be re-ordered
using drag and drop. Custom ordering of favorites would be nice when
browsing a movie to see where it is playing: I'd like to see my "favorite
favorite" at the top.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by brownsug...@gmail.com on 27 Aug 2008 at 11:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There is room.  But i want to use it for something else :)

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 28 Aug 2008 at 1:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There's room for 2 if not 3 more controls up there (some of Apple's bars have 5
controls on them, and they're not too small at all).  Just sayin.

By the way, Now Playing is great and is the best movie app right now. Thanks 
and keep
it up!

Original comment by brownsug...@gmail.com on 29 Aug 2008 at 7:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Well... not *really*.

You have to consider the fact that the app is localized into other languages 
(which have different length 
strings).  Even the 3 tabs i have in 'movies' are very scrunched in some 
languages.  I also reserve the right 
gutter to show the progress indicator (which cuts down on available size).  

But i'll see if i can come up with a solution here :)

Thanks!

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 29 Aug 2008 at 7:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Maybe you can use just the star icon for the favorites list. 

Just out of curiosity: Does Now Playing work in other countries, with 
integration to
local data sources? And within the US, do you list Spanish-only movies or 
theaters?
If not, I'm not sure what the point of localization is. Just sayin.

And if you really need localization, I've got to think there are short words 
for Name
and Distance available, even in "long" languages, like Greek and Telegu (the 
language
of my parents). Another option is finding the right icons, such as the star you 
have
for favorites -- perhaps use icons by default, and use text when you support a
particular localization?

Original comment by brownsug...@gmail.com on 31 Aug 2008 at 6:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm working on global coverage for an upcoming release. So localization is very 
necessary. 

I'm also just not seeing the high utility of this change. All the button would 
do is filter out any non favorite so 
you just see your favorite.  However, if you want to see your favorites, just 
click the top of the screen to 
have the list scroll up there. 

It's one click for both solutions. But the curent solution needs no further 
work or complexity. 

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 31 Aug 2008 at 10:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have a keen focus on UI design, both in terms of understandability and 
usability.
With the exception of the issue I'm raising here, Now Playing shines in both 
aspects.
But the way you include favorites in the Name and Distance theater list modes 
fails
in both aspects:

1. The intent of the Name and Distance list modes is display theaters by name 
and by
distance, respectively. Sticking favorites at the top violates the meaning of 
the
list.  If I want to see the closest theaters, they should be at the very top of 
the
Distance list, not one section down. i.e. favorites != distance. Overloading the
meaning of things or wedging in items that you can't fit anywhere else mixes up 
your
design and messes with understandability. You might think this is trivial, but 
it is
not.  Take a look at any of Apple's apps -- you won't see the kind of 
overloading
that you are doing. A means A and B means B. 

2. You list favorites twice in each list, once in the favorites section and 
again in
their place in the ordered list.  You had no choice because doing otherwise 
would
have violated the point of the lists even further. But now the lists are longer 
than
they need be.  

3. More important than #1 and 2, inclusion of favorites in the Name and Distance
lists violates their usability. As any location aware app should, your lists
correctly show what is near the user's current location WITH A MAJOR EXCEPTION: 
one's
favorites show up at the top of the list no matter where you are!  So if I work 
30
miles from where I live, or if I am traveling on business or pleasure, I don't 
get a
clean location-specific list of nearby theater options. If I want to see what's
nearby, the top of the list is what is furthest away!

4. A favorite is someone's preference, not necessarily the theater they always 
go to
first.  If the latter were true, you wouldn't bother showing anything other than
favorites.  I might go to a favorite that is a few miles further away than a
non-favorite, but maybe not 10 miles further away. So what I need is a Distance 
list
that simply displays in Distance order, but with my favorites highlighted 
within this
distance context, either with a colored background, colored text (e.g. missed 
calls
in the phone app), or with stars.  Now I'd be able to make a quick decision.

5. Going back to #3, what if I have favorite theaters in three places: near 
home,
near work and in another city I frequently travel to.  So now my favorites list 
is
really big and is not location aware.  Usability goes down further.  If you had 
a
separate favorites list to manage favorites, your Name and Distance lists could
function as they should: showing only theaters nearby in the order specified, 
with
favorites highlighted.  The separate favorites list could be user ordered as I
mentioned in an earlier comment, and they could be grouped by city. You can't 
reply
to me that supporting users who commute or travel goes beyond the needs of Now
Playing users, because the whole point of a mobile, location aware app is to be
mobile and location aware!

Anyway, let me know if you just want me to shut up.

vas

Original comment by brownsug...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 7:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"2. You list favorites twice in each list, once in the favorites section and 
again in
their place in the ordered list.  You had no choice because doing otherwise 
would
have violated the point of the lists even further. But now the lists are longer 
than
they need be.  "

I don't actually do that.

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 7:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Vas, while you've pointed out issues you perceive in the current model, i did 
not see an explanation of why the 
model you provide is superior.

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 7:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> I don't actually do that.

Actually, you do. Look at the Name list. You're right with respect to the 
Distance
list, which means you don't get credit at least partially not violating the 
intent of
the list as I had said. It is only a Distance list for non-favorite theaters, 
period.

> Vas, while you've pointed out issues you perceive in the
> current model, i did not see an explanation of why the 
> model you provide is superior.

Cyrus, are you serious?  After all that I wrote? Is it that you don't grasp the 
UI
design principles that I base my critique on?

I've provided two solutions for you so far: Dedicated favorites list and 
highlighted
but in-order favorites in the Name Distance lists. Both solutions meet the
principles. There may be other, better solutions -- I can thing of at least one
other. But the first step is understanding why what you are doing is a bad idea.

Check out any of the Apple apps, or Facebook, or any other top-tier information
application.

I greatly appreciate your work on Now Playing, Cyrus. I'm just trying to give 
you
honest feedback so you can make Now Playing top-notch.  

Peace, bro.

vas

Original comment by brownsug...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 8:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"Actually, you do. Look at the Name list."

I have.  If it shows up in 'favorites' then it is not included in the name list.

"It is only a Distance list for non-favorite theaters, period."

Yes.  that's correct IMO.  If a theater is a favorite of yours, you already 
know where it is and how far away it is.  
You don't need the 'discovery' information that the list gives you.  

This is why it's elevated.  You already know it and have it there for your 
consideration.  If it is unsuitable, then 
you can go back to discovering through the normal means provided.

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 8:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"Cyrus, are you serious? "

Yes

"After all that I wrote?"

Yes

"Is it that you don't grasp the UI design principles that I base my critique 
on?"

Sure.  let's go with that.  

Explain them so that i can decide if this is worthwhile or not.

Thanks.

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 8:28

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"I've provided two solutions for you so far: Dedicated favorites list"

I've mentioned my concern here.  I have a purpose for that space for a future 
release, and i'm somewhat 
loathe to lose it for this ability which seems not altogether necessary.

It also means an extra click to find common information.  Something that seems 
undesirable.

"and highlighted but in-order favorites in the Name Distance lists."

Highlighted-but-in-order means that a user who has marked their favorites needs 
to do work to find them.  I 
don't like that :(

"Both solutions meet the principles."

And have other drawbacks.  They're not immediately obvious to me as actual 
improvements.

"There may be other, better solutions -- I can thing of at least one ther. But 
the first step is understanding 
why what you are doing is a bad idea."

That's precisely why i asked you to explain.

If there are better solutions, then why not start with those?  Why provide 
solutions that are not as good?

"I greatly appreciate your work on Now Playing, Cyrus. I'm just trying to give 
you honest feedback so you can 
make Now Playing top-notch. "

I've never doubted that.  

However, do not take the fact that i don't immediately accept your case as 
meaning that i disagree with you.  I 
simply need to understand and evaluate the options laid out before me. 

Cheers!

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 8:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"Check out any of the Apple apps, or Facebook, or any other top-tier 
information application."

The way i thnk of this view is that it's the prepopulated results of a search 
based on your current location.  
That search can be ordered by certain criteria (currently: name and distance).  
But, as a search, it is affected by 
other factors at play.

Top tier apps (like Google Mail for Enterprises) does this when you search for 
contacts.  While an alphabetic 
search is performed, certain other contacts may be elevated above those if the 
system feels that they are 
relevant.

Similarly when searching in something like Maps.  You might search for 'C' 
expecting 'Carrie' to come up.  but 
it will actually come up after 'Current Location'.  Why?  Because Apple 
prioritized a likely candidate for you to 
show up in front of an otherwise ordered list.

Again, this is how i envisioned the page.  The app is already a condensed, 
local-aware, search app.  The 
primary difference between me and other search apps is that:
a) i don't make you type things in
b) i allow you to refine your results by touching

As this is a search app, dogmatic insistence that sorting *must* mean only one 
thing is silly to me.  Sorting is 
merely a way to help navigate results.  But it is merely an operator that 
combines with other valuable 
operators (like 'favorites') in order to form an useful heuristic that attempts 
to provide useful information 
quickly and cleanly.

Hopefully this helps clear up where i'm coming from, and why simple statements 
like: "violates their usability"
don't hold much weight for me.   

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 8:44

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Err... that last line should have been: 

Hopefully this helps clear up where i'm coming from, and why simple statements 
like: "violates their usability"
don't hold much weight for me.   <without supporting evidence>

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 8:44

[GoogleCodeExporter]

>I have.  If it shows up in 'favorites' then it is not included in the name 
list.

See attached.

>Yes.  that's correct IMO.  If a theater is a favorite of yours, you already 
know
where it is and how far away it is.  You don't need the 'discovery' information 
that
the list gives you.  

That's partly true, but it's also overly simplified. Again, it is less true for 
big
city dwellers, and even less true for travelers. If I'm trying to make a quick
decision base upon my current location in the San Francisco Bay area, I can't 
without
figuring out in my head which theater is closer based on my current location. 
You
keep saying you want to avoid adding an extra click (see my next comment 
below), but
here you are asking people to do all the distance calcs -- what's the point of
location awareness?  

>It also means an extra click to find common information.  Something that seems
undesirable.

Then why bother having separate Name and Distance lists? An extra click, no? 
Why even
have separate Movies and Theaters tabs? Extra clicks with redundant info, no? 
Why did
Apple include a dedicated Favorites tab in the phone app rather than putting
favorites at the top of the Contacts tab? On the Recents tab, which is in time 
order,
why didn't they put missed calls on top?  Why not, in the iPod app, eliminate 
the
Playlist tab and stick them on top of the Album tab, since playlists are kind 
of like
custom albums?

Sorry for being sarcastic, Cyrus, but I don't know how else to get what I think 
is an
easy point across. 

I think I give up.  Good luck.  :)

Original comment by brownsug...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 9:16

Attachments:

• IMG_0001.PNG

[GoogleCodeExporter]

But your UI and user interaction is NOT of a search app. The user isn't typing
anything, so the ONLY search criteria is the name of the tab. Like you said, 
"Current
Location" comes up when you type "C", not "D".  And if you want to include 
favorites
as an implicit criteria, then do so -- but you don't. They are hard-coded as top
results regardless of relevance (i.e. regardless of my location). 

Your argument about additional clicks is false. It's a single click for each of 
the
three purposes: (1) I want to find a theater by name, (2) I want to find a 
theater by
distance and (3) I want to see my favorites.  You're UI adds extra work for 
users who
want to do #1 or #2, they have to scroll past the favorites -- scrolling is
significantly harder than a click.

Anyway, I think that's all I have to say. Maybe you're absolutely right. It's 
your
app afterall.

Cheers and thanks -- Now Playing is still the best available, so I'll still use 
it.

vas

Original comment by brownsug...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 9:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"Sorry for being sarcastic, Cyrus, but I don't know how else to get what I 
think is an
easy point across."

Sarcasm is completely unnecessary and unwelcome.  It makes your point come 
across in a hostile manner.

As i said before, i'm evaluation this idea, and i need the impartially 
delivered, cogent reasons as to why this is  
good idea.   

You've made some very interesting points.  But they would be better served if 
you did not let emotions get in 
the way of delivering them.

Cheers!

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 6:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Brown,

You have an old version of the app.

Cheers!

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2008 at 2:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"You're UI adds extra work for users who
want to do #1 or #2, they have to scroll past the favorites -- scrolling is
significantly harder than a click."

I don't accept that as axiomatic.

IMO condensed and always available information is less difficult than splitting 
out information into separate 
categories which must be navigted between.

Cheers!

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2008 at 2:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Considered the options, and decided that they don't provide any significant 
benefit (and possibly detract from 
the user experience). 

Closing this out.

Original comment by cyrus.na...@gmail.com on 11 Nov 2008 at 10:08

• Changed state: WontFix