x2: "Bug" in sort by date?

flexigon · Post by **flexigon** » 2003 Oct 31, 08:17

When sorting by date in x2 then files are ordered in the exact oposite order as is the case with Windows Explorer (ascending/descending is reversed).

(I actually only tested this with the Modified date)

Post by **nikos** » 2003 Oct 31, 10:11

this is by design since more often than not one is interested in the newer files

flexigon · Post by **flexigon** » 2003 Oct 31, 10:53

Well, that is the main reason to sort by date anyhow. But having worked with Windows Explorer for years, I (and I think many others) are used to the fact that the newest files apear at the bottom by default (ascending). In my opinion it is counterintuitive to do the exact oposite in x2.

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 2003 Oct 31, 12:48

I agree: the arrow direction should be consistent in all columns.

To get the dates in descending, their default direction could be set to "descending" (the default arrow in date columns will point downwards, that's all).

Post by **nikos** » 2003 Oct 31, 13:22

excuse me, but these are all conventions
if you had a column that listed, say, thumbnails, what would be the up/down order for? Whatever you care to assign for it. Likewise for dates. I rest my case!

flexigon · Post by **flexigon** » 2003 Oct 31, 13:39

I agree that it is all about convention and I couldn't care less how thumbnails or just about any custom stuff would be sorted. All I'm saying is that sorting by date is so common that it would be nice if x2 would behave in the same way as Windows Explorer. Many people (have to) use both x2 and Windows Explorer (e.g. work/home) so why not make this as intuitively as possible?

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 2003 Oct 31, 13:57

Also, graphically, an up arrow means "ascending" in all other columns and "descending" in dates.

So, even if we don't compare with Windows Explorer, there's inconsistency.

Consider a comparion with arrows ("This side up") marked on cardboard boxes: Can we say-

"Put the box with arrow pointing down if there is a PC inside."

NO! The arrow convention, once adopted, remains consistent!

Post by **nikos** » 2003 Oct 31, 14:17

dates "ascending into the past" is what i like to call it

it is dealt the aussie way, you know, christmas in summer and all

do you really want to have the ascending in the windows sense?
then to get the most recent files you'd have to click twice on the column header. I don't understand why you oppose something that makes your life easier, i really don't...

flexigon · Post by **flexigon** » 2003 Oct 31, 19:25

My whole point it that it doesn't make my life easier... it is inconsistent with Win Explorer and thus confusing. I have been using Windows Explorer for a long long time and I am forced to still use it every now and then. I think this is true for many (most?) (potential) x2 users.

You obviously try to mimic Win Explorer in many ways (which is a good thing IMO - Microsoft probably spent milions of dollars on figuring out what users like in a File Manager so why try to re-invent the wheel), so I can't quite grasp why you seriously would want to be inconsistent with Explorer on the date sort thing.

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2003 Nov 01, 03:20

Am I missing something, or do I see two topics, nearly confused?

1. default (hopefully most useful) sort orders are
a. alphamerically ascending for "name" (i.e. low "values" at head of list)
b. most recent files first (i.e. high date.time values at head of list -- which is a numerically descending sort order)

(and x2's defaults are just that)

2. The defacto symbols sort direction:
a. for ascending sequence sort = up arrowhead
b. for descending sequence sort = dn arrowhead

But here x2 uses the up arrowhead atop descending seq.sort for dates.

So, for me x2 get max usefulness with min. clicks for sort-by-date (in whichever flavor of date you want), but just gets the symbol up-side-dn.
(a minor nit for some, but an annoying wart for others)

As for me, the annoying wart is that I had to d-click on date hdg when I used to use m$ explorer. (But it still would be nice if x2's use of the guide symbols were more consistent with defacto convention. And, BTW, a similar inconsistency is found in the up/dn scroll buttons in the search rules "date settings" sub-pane .)

My personal usability bottom line is that x2 gets an "A" for functionality and a "B" for knob selection for now.

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 2003 Nov 01, 04:52

Now it's my turn to admire Fred's comments: neatly described!

To sum up:

The scope of discussion is only limited to dates of all sorts (not any other columns).

Within that scope, there are two bones of contention-

Issue#1: which should be the order at start: ascending or descending?

IMO, it is better than standard windows explorer approach; but some users may want ascending order when x2 starts. Probably there should be a user option to set default sorting directions for dates. (For other columns, Ascending order is OK; and noone is objecting! )

Issue#2: The arrow direction
The direction is definitely is WRONG. It MUST reflect the actual sorting direction (up for ascending; down for descending).

In other words, when x2 starts with descending dates (as default), the dates columns will have downward arrow. Nothing wrong in that!

TychoQuad · Post by **TychoQuad** » 2003 Nov 01, 05:57

nikos wrote:it is dealt the aussie way, you know, christmas in summer and all

*TychoQuad frowns, puts on his t-shirt and cork hat, and folds his arms.

JRz · Post by **JRz** » 2003 Nov 01, 07:32

I second the motion to make the arrow point down on intial date sorting, but leave the sorting itself alone. Most recent on top is perfect. And don't you even think about mimicking (is this spelled correctly??) Windows Explorer on this one. It might be true that Microsoft has invested a lot of money to get that thing designed right, but then they've definitely been taken for a ride

I also like the option to let the user decide how to sort initially for dates. But thats for the future I think. Most times you're looking for the most recent files, so sorting descending is the sensible thing to do.

Any more votes?

Post by **nikos** » 2003 Nov 01, 09:25

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm a genuine slacker and don't like wasting any more keystrokes than necessary. Giving the up arrow for every column is convenience for the programmer. If you get the desired functionality what does it matter whether the arrow is sideways, as long as it is consistently so?

Anyway, since I'm going to revisit the sorting issue wrt mutli-column sorting (soon), I guess I can add an extra if() or two to satisfy your strict "precision in definition of symbolic ascendedness" standards

Scissors · Post by **Scissors** » 2003 Nov 19, 14:18

(Hey, i was looking for something totally different, but this one deserves a reply)

OK, everybody seems -at least- to support a "call for change", in the sense that "an UP arrow would indicate ASCENDING order". (For now there is only an UP arrow, but it gets highlighted or not)
This LOOKS right AT FIRST SIGHT: i have this column in front of me, and at the bottom i have this -highlighted- arrow saying "Sort order is ASCENDING". But of course it is ascending from the top to the bottom, which means "running UP downwards" ...

Motion for later release, IF the change ever comes through:

a) Have a toggled up-arrow/down-arrow, as for me there's no big difference in adding 2 different pictures with different background colour or in adding a picture and its mirrored counter-picture.

b) Have the date-default solved in a "user defined preference"
(... to me it didn't matter, i like the default and changing it is only one double-click.)

c) Have a debate on what means "ascending order" on a down-running page, esp if the arrow-button stays on the bottom line.