IMSLP Forums

For the past ten months or so, the Category Walker has been one of the site's most powerful features. However, complaints have been heard about its somewhat tricky, unintuitive user interface. The purpose of this thread is to solicit opinions on how that interface could be improved. What features are unintuitive or difficult to use? What would you suggest they be changed to? Is there anything missing entirely from the CW which you think should be there?
My hope is that sometime this fall, Feldmahler will have the time and motivation to at least partially redesign the CW based on our suggestions here. So please, post anything that you believe should be worked on, no matter how trivial you think it is

I highly approve of this thread Even I sometimes get a headache from using the CW. I know it can do many wonderful things that has never been done before, but sometimes it is like a brain teaser.

I think at the moment it's organized by most popular first? For example, people don't always know to go to page 2 to find more quartets -- if three types are listed on page 1, they think that will be the only three.

We could get more on one page if we could use 2 columns, but some of the columns are wider than others, so I'm not sure two of the widest would fit side by side.

That still wouldn't solve the problem of how to know to go to the next page to find a different type trio or quartet, etc.

I am not sure if an older suggestion of mine has slipped thru without being noticed (posted July 23 in moderator requests):

Since a firsttime user may never dream, that each of the different tables may continue on a second or even third page, it should be possible to view one table in its entirety - not sure if that is easy to implement.
But the easiest fix may be to just have a copy of a "next" or better "more" button at the bottom of each table rather than only at the bottom of the entire page.

Thanks for the replies so far. Another thing I was thinking of is that some of the commands in the 'Actions' column could be not only renamed but made easier to see (especially the most important one, currently 'list'). One more thing to consider is the possibility of viewing supercategories of a category, as well as distinguishing between subcategories of a tag and other unrelated categories. Maybe there could be separate tables for these - one marked 'Supercategories', the other 'Subcategories', and a third for the duplicates?

@KGill -- that could be the solution to finding stuff on page 3:

For 5 players:
For flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn
For clarinet, 2 violins, viola, cello
For 3 clarinets, bass clarinet
Others For 5 players


I like it .

I like this as well

Another subcategory easily missed are the corresponding arranged works (i.e. for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, arr.). A simple explanation like "arrangements are listed under a separate subcategory" may be sufficient, or a supercategory "works for 5 players, arranged"), but maybe someone else has a better idea.

I think that it may be a good time to revive this thread. I have either responded to or seen others respond to a fair number of posts with something along the lines of "Yes, you can in fact sort by instrumentation/work type/etc. - just click on 'Work genre'" and so forth. If this had happened once, I guess there wouldn't be much to worry about, but since it has happened something like a dozen times or more, perhaps we ought to address it in a better way than just letting people ask on the forums to obtain advice. (After all, how many people couldn't find it or figure it out and didn't bother to post here about it?) I think one of the most important issues with the CW is simply being able to find it. To this end, I believe that it would be advisable to take one or more steps to make it more prominent throughout the site. For starters, I would propose the following:
1. Replace the 'genre' designation in the sidebar with multiple links for each section of VG. (So there would be a link for 'work type', one for 'instrumentation', etc.)
2. The categories that result from tagging pages should not be limited to being displayed on the very bottom of pages like ordinary categories, but should be placed more prominently - somehow incorporated into the General Information section as links. I think this would help people who are less wiki-savvy to learn of their existence and find their way into the system.
Thoughts? I would be interested to hear other suggestions (hopefully more wide-ranging than mine) on this.

Perhaps something like "Looking for all works of a given instrumentation? Use our category walker!"

The links at the bottom probably could stay at the bottom, but with a header -- "Looking for other works in related cateogries? Click on one of these:" (I do think these probably should stay at the bottom, since all material related to the individual work should be higher up on the page).

steltz wrote:(I do think these probably should stay at the bottom, since all material related to the individual work should be higher up on the page).

But don't those still relate to the individual work? They just describe some of the same attributes that are already in the General Information box, after all....

Yes, but the files of the specific work and all information about that specific work and those files should come first, since that is what the work page is for, and this leaves the related links coming afterward. Kind of by definition, that's at the bottom.

What I meant was not that the General Information section would come first on the page; what I was trying to say is that the tag categories should be made prominent within the General Information box. So, for instance, the links to the categories for composer and style would be accompanied by links to the categories for instrumentation, language, and piece type - right there in the box, not relegated to the bottom of the page. I feel that this would significantly increase their visibility, since many people unfamiliar with wikis might not even notice the very bottom line of the page (where all the categories are placed by default).

Isn't that going to make the Miscellaneous Comments section below the related links? I feel that the Miscellaneous Comments, since they directly relate to the specific work, still need to be above the other links.

Well, Misc. Comments is being phased out anyway with Davydov's new style guide, but I don't see why this would be a problem because we already have the General Information box above the Misc. Comments section, and this would be an addition to the General Information box.
We also have the link to the composer of a work in the G.I. box - since that doesn't 'relate to the individual work', should that be removed as well?

Can you give us a link to the new style guide? I just want to see where to put all the comments citing Grove, etc.