Bug 1436 - Page breaks in Browse Artwork
: Page breaks in Browse Artwork
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Product: Logitech Media Server
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Web Interface
: 6.0.1
: PC All
: P2 trivial (vote)
: Future
Assigned To: Dan Sully
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-04-26 01:10 UTC by Patrick Dixon
Modified: 2008-12-15 13:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Category: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Patrick Dixon 2005-04-26 01:10:40 UTC
Browse Artwork appears to show thumbnails in pages of 50.

However, thumbnails are displayed according to the size of the browser window
and the size of the thumbnail.

As a result, thumbnails get pushed onto the next page for no logical reason: eg.
if you have 51 albums, and thumbnails are displayed 7 across, you finish up with
7 rows of 7, plus 1 on the bottom line, with the last thumbnail pushed onto the
next page.

Solution: ditch pages in Browse thumbnails and let the browser scrolling do the
work.
Comment 1 KDF 2005-04-26 02:21:08 UTC
it should be using the same "items per page" setting as all the other browse
modes.  I believe the default is now 50.  Do you have your interface setting to
include, or delete placeholders?
Comment 2 Patrick Dixon 2005-04-26 02:38:46 UTC
Browse by Artist reports 80+ artists but does not split pages - so doesn't
appear to be the same as other modes.  In this case page break on number of
items would be inappropriate anyway - it should page break on rows (or not at all)!

Placeholders are included.

FC3 /I believe this is the same for 6.01-branch and 6.10-branch of yesterday.
Comment 3 KDF 2005-04-26 04:00:48 UTC
well, the items per page is more to save rendering effort and not kill audio. 
calculating x by y for a given thumbnail size would probably be just as taxing.
 I  have my setup with placeholders removed, and that still displays 600 covers
if it wasn't paged.  setting items per page to something like 1000 guarantees
that the squeezebox reports loss of contact with the server.  however, the
paging should be more consistent that what you are reporting, especially if you
still have the placeholders in since that should bascially be the same as browse
by album 
Comment 4 KDF 2005-05-11 13:11:38 UTC
it seems that current playlist, browse by artwork, browse new music are the only
ones that adhere to the itemsPerPage setting.  The rest seem to adjust from it
slightly.  I cannot explain why, but THAT would appear to be the bug to me.  I
am unaware of any design to ignore that.  
Comment 5 Jim McAtee 2005-09-12 16:40:53 UTC
I don't see how this is a bug, or even an enhancement request.  If you divide 
pages into groups of 50 and you have 51, then logically you can expect to have 
1 item on the last page.  Moving to _not_ divide Browse Artwork into pages 
certainly can't be an option, since someone with hundreds or thousands of 
albums wouldn't want those served on a single page.  In fact, this would be the 
worst browse mode to not break into pages, since the server is also dishing out 
all those images.  If a user really wants this behavior, then he just sets the 
items per page to a very large number.

Note that with the use of the alphapagebar in Browse Artwork (v6.2+) the 
division is now on a letter boundary, so the strict items-per-page isn't 
adhered to.

The only enhancement I could think of to the (alphapagebar) paging would be to 
use an approach where if you're computing the items to place on a page, look 
ahead to see how many items would be on the next page #N.  If it's less than 
some number (maybe itemsperpage/10 ?) then add the 'leftover' items to this 
page.
Comment 6 KDF 2005-09-12 16:44:09 UTC
good point.  marking fixed as per alphapagebar design
Comment 7 Patrick Dixon 2005-09-13 00:43:57 UTC
Hey, wait a minute!

The point is that browse by artwork puts 'n' items per line, rather than the
single item per line of the other modes.  Since the number of items per line
depends on: the size of the artwork (user configurable), and the size of the
browser window, if you use a fixed number of items per page then the page
boundary often occurs at an inappropriate point.

To use the example of '51' items, if your browser is displaying 7 items per row,
browse artwork will display 7 rows of 7 items, with a trailing row of just 1
item; you will then have to go to page 2 to see another single row of 1 item. 
Under that circumstance (7 items per row) It would be far neater if browse
artwork was intelligent enough to end the page of a full line of items ie in our
example 7 x 7 = 49 on page 1, and 2 x 1 on page 2.  I've been setting the number
of items per page to 60, since it's divisible by more small intergers than 50,
and therefore generally gives neater results.

So browse artwork would be better page breaking on multiples of the number of
items per row, rather than an arbitary fixed number or even a letter of the
alphabet.

Hope I've explained that better!
Comment 8 Jim McAtee 2005-09-13 08:12:38 UTC
But with the use of the alphapagebar in v6.2 the division of these pages is now 
on letter boundaries, so even if you could strictly define number of items per 
row, you're going to have an unpredictable number of items on the page and 
therefore in the last row.

I was doing _exactly_ what you do with respect to items per page.  My browser 
window and my designated thumbnail size always gives me either 3 or 4 across, 
so I defined my items per page to be divisible by either.  It's a moot point 
now.

One tip: I use a customized fishbone skin.  If you most often use browse 
artwork, as I do, in the index.html file set the size of the left hand frame to 
a fixed pixel size (with something like cols="555,*").  Then, whenever you open 
your browser, the browse pane on the left will alway have a set number of items 
per row, no matter what the window size is.
Comment 9 Patrick Dixon 2005-09-13 08:21:37 UTC
The alphapagebar will obviously change things, and is definitely better than the
previous 'arbitary' split - so I'll give it a go and see how it looks in
practise.  It's a pretty small thing anyhow - in the scheme of things!

Thanks for the tip.
Comment 10 James Richardson 2008-12-15 13:06:32 UTC
This bug appears to have been fixed in the latest release!

If you are still experiencing this problem, feel free to reopen the bug with your new comments and we'll have another look.

Make sure to include the version number of the software you are seeing the error with.