Jump to content
jirim100

Sorting in Search EPG window - suggestion

Recommended Posts

jirim100

1) After performing new search in Search EPG window and "Channel" and "Name" are the same for search results then the default sort order of these result should be according to "Date" - ascending (web interface should be check, before printing results, whether in search results are rows with the same Channel and Name and sort these rows according Date). On the following image is badly sorted output:

image.thumb.png.ba22e3a9bfefa387c8cdefc16e0dd181.png

 

2) Similarly, when I aditionally sort showed results by Channel or Name (mouse click on title "Channel" or "Name") AND Channel + Name are the same for some groups of results then the sorted output of these groups should be aditionally sorted according the Date - ascending. The following two outputs (sorted by Channel) are bad, because output is not aditionally sorted by Date:

image.thumb.png.a7a2c6072204193f65ce46173c29f53b.png

 

and this is too bad:

 

image.thumb.png.71ce05cf2b82919a2d33362e6b44f981.png

 

 

3) Sorting by Channel (mouse click on "Channel" title) working ONLY in ascending order, but not in desdending order when I click on "Channel" title secondly when channel names are the same - difference is only with (T) or (C) appended on the end of the channel names as you can see on the next picture:

image.thumb.png.2192a84b174b4764f5e7bd7b2b120e2b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Griga

You are right. The sorting should be enhanced. Maybe you can outline your ideas more systematically by using the following scheme, where (a) means ascending, (d) descending and (s) the same (ascending/descending) order as the parent order:

  • Sort by date
    • if equal second sorting by ... (a/d/s)
      • if equal third sorting by ... (a/d/s)
  • Sort by duration
    • if equal second sorting by ... (a/d/s)
      • if equal third sorting by ... (a/d/s)
  • Sort by channel
    • if equal...

etc. When it is done you can get a test version for trying if it really works as intended.

 

Share this post


Link to post
jirim100

Ok. Most important is the second sort order by date ascendently (and all the following sorting orders ascendently too) regardless the sort order of the parent, therefore:

  • Sort by channel (a) or (d) - 1. case
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)
      • if equal third sorting by name (a)
        • if equal fourth sorting by duration (a)
  • Sort by name (a) or (d) - 2. case
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)
      • if equal third sorting by channel (a)
        • if equal fourth sorting by duration (a)

 

The next two cases are not very important, but in 3. case sorting by duration should be at the end and in 4. case sorting by date should by the second:

  • Sort by date (a) or (d) - 3. case
    • if equal second sorting by name (a)
      • if equal third sorting by channel (a)
        • if equal fourth sorting by duration (a)
  • Sort by duration (a) or (d) - 4. case
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)
      • if equal third sorting by name (a)
        • if equal fourth sorting by channel (a)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Griga

Thanks for your contribution! Some additional aspects:

  • Sorting by date actually is sorting by time, which means, for being equal date and time must match. With other words: Sorting by date always includes a secondary sorting by time. It's quite unlikely that there will be two or more items at the same date/time from the same channel,  which can save unnecessary sub-sorting.
  • Sorting by name always includes a secondary sorting by subheading (if available). It's the black text at the end:

Zwischenablage01.png

  • You've always selected "ascending" for secondary sorting, regardless of the parent sort order. However, the Windows 7 Explorer details view does it differently, e.g. on sorting by file type with secondary sorting by filename. Reversing the file type sort order also reverses the secondary sorting, which means, the whole order of items is reversed. The last one becomes the first. I wouldn't say this is better, but it has to be considered what people are used to from other Windows software.
  • Regarding your suggestion for secondary sorting, your sorting priority is "by date" over "by name" over "by channel" over "by duration". However, I wonder if sub-sorting or grouping by channel may be more important in certain cases than by date or by name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
jirim100
2 hours ago, Griga said:
  • Sorting by date actually is sorting by time, which means, for being equal date and time must match. With other words: Sorting by date always includes a secondary sorting by time.

Yes, this is correct, I agree. In my answer above you can replace text "by date" to "by date + time".

 

2 hours ago, Griga said:
  • ... It's quite unlikely that there will be two or more items at the same date/time from the same channel,  which can save unnecessary sub-sorting. 

You still have to do all sub-sortings because the same date+time can have items from different channels.

 

2 hours ago, Griga said:
  • Sorting by name always includes a secondary sorting by subheading (if available). It's the black text at the end:

Yes, this is correct, I agree. In my answer above you can replace text "by name" to "by name+subheading".

 

2 hours ago, Griga said:
  • You've always selected "ascending" for secondary sorting, regardless of the parent sort order. However, the Windows 7 Explorer details view does it differently, e.g. on sorting by file type with secondary sorting by filename. Reversing the file type sort order also reverses the secondary sorting, which means, the whole order of items is reversed. The last one becomes the first. I wouldn't say this is better, but it has to be considered what people are used to from other Windows software.

Full filename is filename + file type, therefore in Windows Explorer is correct respecting parent sort order ((asc) name + (asc) type - or - (desc) name + (desc) type).  It would be very stupid if Windows Explorer don't respect this SPECIAL case, sorting by filename have to be always the same as sorting be file type. But in our case we don't have filename+filetype and in my opinion is always much more priority firstly show items with the closest time. You can trust me 😀. I am recording more than 6 years, every week many recordings.

 

2 hours ago, Griga said:
  • Regarding your suggestion for secondary sorting, your sorting priority is "by date" over "by name" over "by channel" over "by duration". However, I wonder if sub-sorting or grouping by channel may be more important in certain cases than by date or by name.

Of course - we can discuss about this still and still.

The best solution could be the following: Now web interface remember sorting only according to the first clicked column. Is it possible, in web interface, to remember sorting according more columns?? This would be the best and this would meet the requirements of all users!

Here is how can this working: 

First click on column - (a)scending sort order

Second click on column - (d)escending sort order

Third click on column - remove column from sorting chain.

Exampe: I firstly click on column "Channel" (set sorting Channel (a)), then I click on column "Date" (now is sorting by "Channel" (a) plus by "Date + time" (a)), when I click on column "Date" again the sorting will be by "Channel" (a) plus by "Date + time" (d), now I click on column "Name" (now is sorting by "Channel" (a) plus by "Date + time" (d) plus by "Name" (a)), now I click on column "Channel" again twice - this remove "Channel" from sorting chain and sorting will by only by "Date + time" (d) plus by "Name" (a).

 

Edited by jirim100

Share this post


Link to post
Griga
vor 3 Minuten schrieb jirim100:

You still have to do all sub-sortings because the same date can have items from different channels.

 

I don't think so, because after

  • Sort by channel (a) or (d) - 1. case
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)

or more generally, after sorting by channel and date/time, no matter in which order, you can stop, because additional sub-sorting won't take effect anymore.

 

Anyway, I think 3 levels of sorting are sufficient in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
jirim100
24 minutes ago, Griga said:

I don't think so, because after

  • Sort by channel (a) or (d) - 1. case
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)

or more generally, after sorting by channel and date/time, no matter in which order, you can stop, because additional sub-sorting won't take effect anymore.

 

Ok, you are right.

Edited by jirim100

Share this post


Link to post
Griga
vor 1 Stunde schrieb jirim100:

Third click on column - remove column from sorting chain.

 

Unusual, not obvious for users, too complicated. Only few users would be able to handle it.

 

Here is my suggestion for sorting, based on yours:

  • Sort by date (a) or (d)
    • if equal second sorting by channel (a)
  • Sort by duration (a) or (d)
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)
      • if equal third sorting by channel (a)
  • Sort by channel (a) or (d)
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)
  • Sort by name (a) or (d)
    • if equal second sorting by date (a)
      • if equal third sorting by channel (a)

It prefers sub-sorting by channel to sub-sorting by name. It only needs little code because the sequence "sort by date (a) -> if equal sort by channel (a)" appears several times, unifies the sub-sorting behaviour, can be used as subroutine and is a stop criterion (see above). Making the code handy is also something important, because that's what we have to work with in future on every change in this section. Usually a clear code structure is reflected in a clear UI behaviour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
jirim100

Ok, I accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Griga

Please check your PMs...

Share this post


Link to post
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...