Opened 12 years ago

Closed 12 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

#1438 closed Enhancement (wontfix)

Streamline file downlaod folder

Reported by: orgin Owned by: charles
Priority: Normal Milestone: None Set
Component: Transmission Version: 1.34+
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

The Preferences screen should be complemented with an option to turn off "Display option dialog" but at the same time allow you to select the download path for new files. That is, add an new option called "Select destination folder for every new file".

The goal is to get the following function:

  1. click a torrent link in your browser
  1. the browser sends the file to transmission
  1. transmission opens a directory selection* requester
  1. the user selected a directory and clicks 'select'
  1. transmission downloads the file into the selected directory.
  • without first getting a fancy 'last used folders' view that you have to click 'other location' in. Just show a normal simple directory selection requester that starts out pointing to the last used directory.

In 1.34 under ubuntu+gnome the procedure is as follows which isn't very streamlined (in fact it is quite akward):

  1. Click a torrent link in your browser
  1. the browser sends the file to transmission
  1. transmission opens the torrent options window
  1. click 'destination folder'
  1. click 'other'
  1. a new path selection window opens
  1. the user selects a new path
  1. back in the options window the user has to click 'add'
  1. transmission downloads the new file

Change History (17)

comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by livings124

  • Component changed from Transmission to GTK+ Client
  • Owner set to charles

comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by charles

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from new to closed

Having more than one dialog series for adding a torrent is overkill, IMO.

comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by orgin

  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Version changed from 1.34 to 1.34+

To do this with the current options window is what is overkill (9 steps that you have to go through Every time). But I guess Transmission isn't about ease to use any more.

This isn't about adding new dialogs. It's about removing dialogs that are of no use and that does not add anything to the process and instead just open a directory browser without any other unnecessary steps. Simplier, better, faster. If anyone wants to use the akward annoying way they can just reactivate the option dialog.

comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by charles

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Lowering the tone of conversation with the mini-troll "But I guess Transmission isn't about ease to use any more" is not productive.

The options you suggest removing may be unnecessary to you but they are there because many other users requested them. Removing them might make Transmission easier for you, but at the cost of making it less easy for them.

The intent of that dialog's current layout is to provide the most-requested features with a minimum of sprawl. If you have a suggestion on how to improve how the dialog achieves that goal, without inconveniencing other users at your expense, and also without requiring some bloated configuration on what choices are provided in the dialog, then I'd be happy to listen.

comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by smmalis

  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Maybe a sub-option under "Display Options Dialog" called "Use Minimal Options Dialog" or something of the sort?

comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by orgin

@charles

"to you" stuff: That is why I in the original request wrote "complemented with".

Having it optional, ie an extra checkbox in the configuration interface, is far less troublesome for the end user to comprehend than understanding why (s)he has to go through the option dialog over and over again.

Such an option is available to tons of software out there so it's not something new and complicated that people have to learn.

What's more important, a bloated interface that you have to go through every time a new file is added or a configuration window with one single extra checkbox that you fiddle with one time only?

Do you lock people into certain patterns of behavior or do you offer choice.

Is bloat better on a regular basis or is it better hidden away.

The choice is yours (of course), I'd choose the latter.

comment:7 Changed 12 years ago by charles

Such an option is available to tons of software out there so it's not something new and complicated that people have to learn. 

examples, please.

comment:8 Changed 12 years ago by charles

Such an option is available to tons of software out there so it's not something new and complicated that people have to learn.

examples, please.

comment:9 Changed 12 years ago by livings124

The vast majority of people want the options available in the options windows. The number of people that don't want those options and do want to chose download location each time is really tiny. Adding a whole new option to avoid a click or 2 for those very few people is bloat.

comment:10 Changed 12 years ago by orgin

@charles

A few examples from the top of my head:

firefox epiphany opera (bit akward to set up though) Arora

@livings124

Source of that bogus statistics please. And no an online poll is not reliable, you'd need to ask everyone who has ever used or intends to use a torrent client if they really want to fiddle with 'important' stuff like priority, "verify local data", "start when added" and "move source file to trash" for every file they download before it starts downloading.

Adding this option is not bloat, it's just a tiny checkbox in the preferences window. And the code for handling the directory selector dialog is already in there. Instead of fetching a fixed path from preferences you open the directory selector dialog to get it. In terms of having 'bloat' in the application, how many people really use a proxy, how many people really use the web interface, how many people really use the ignore options, how many people really set a different listening port, how many people really change limits, how many people really change the bandwidth options, how many people really use the automatically add torrent from the desktop option, how many people really check the message log, how many people really check the statistics page, how many people actually bother with any/all of the options in the view menu, how many people actually care about ratios and so on and on. I'm not saying that any of those are bloat, but compared to my suggested option a lot of these adds far more in terms of both visual impact and code/binary size to the application.

comment:11 Changed 12 years ago by livings124

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Both developers are against this idea, and until YOU can provide reliable statistics on the demand of this feature (an online poll is not reliable) it will not be implemented. If you were willing to implement it and submit working code, perhaps it will be considered.

comment:12 Changed 12 years ago by livings124

And in regards to your statement of it not being bloat, it is 1. in little demand 2. makes the interface more complex 3. adds little in terms of new features. The options you list as bloat are not bloat in that they provide more advanced capabilities, many of which are highly important. Your suggestion is bloat in comparison to the utility it provides, even if it's not great in size.

comment:13 Changed 12 years ago by livings124

Additionally, are you saying that for those examples, they give you the choice of 1. just download, 2. show an options window, and 3. show a window for location?

comment:14 Changed 12 years ago by orgin

  • Component changed from GTK+ Client to Transmission

@livings124

We're not going to agree about the bloat issue. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. So I'm not going to take that any further.

And as for your question. Opera provides options for all three with options window being related to a lot of mime settings, the rest provides 1 and 3. Not that that proves that it's hard to do or that it would confuse any user, but there you go. But all in all it is not relevant to this discussion anyway but straws needs to be grasped I guess. Even if no other application did this and no one ever added a feature that hasn't been used elsewhere then we'd still be stuck with moving little colored balls over a wooden calculating apparatus with no computer in sight.

As for Transmission, things were better with regards to this issue on ubuntu 8.04 and before. But thanks for the time it gave me, it will be missed. As for me, I'm moving on to greener pastures.

comment:15 Changed 12 years ago by orgin

@livings124

And ohh, btw as for "The options you list as bloat are not bloat". Try finding out where I said any of those were bloat.

I'll quote the end of the message for you to make it, well easier: "I'm not saying that any of those are bloat".

comment:16 Changed 12 years ago by livings124

I stopped reading half way through when I realized you were just listing features. Why did you list them?

comment:17 Changed 12 years ago by charles

how many people really use the ignore options

Everyone whose ISP alters BitTorrent? traffic.

how many people really change the bandwidth options

People who surf the internet while downloading.

I'm not saying that any of those are bloat, but compared to my suggested option a lot of these adds far more in terms of both visual impact and code/binary size to the application.

Are you saying that the change you're requesting is a more important feature than packet encryption and bandwidth controls?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.