I think keeping it simple is best. We were all hacked to see lables disappear. Having them back is a dream come true. But I am always leary of extra features at the core level.

I like the idea of pro versions, as long as we paid users get a deal on an upgrade, which I'm sure we would.

I started wondering the same thing about WSX. The minimize in place feature would be nifty, but it may be getting to the point where some of people just want what they had in OS 9, nothing fancy.

Simple is what made Labels so nice.

Something like Labels, but with more features would be nice, but as a another haxie, not to replace Labels.

Actually there was a program called IconTools that made it very easy to play with icons and to 'badge' them. I think having Labels X badge an icon would be a very nice touch. Now if there was some way that Unsanity could create a program like IconTools I would definately pay for that.

I think Labels X and Labels X Pro would be a bad idea. Perhaps raise the price of Labels X and add the 'Pro' stuff to it.

i don't see how a "ratings" option could hurt - sounds kind of cool, actually. (as long as it can be disabled no one should complain)

I think two versions is a great idea. Make a lite version for 5 bucks, and a heavy version for 10 maybe. That sure sounds reasonable to me.

Metadata is good. I like metadata. However, another "set" of metadata just like labels doesn't make a lot of sense. If you can come up with some other cool metadata, though, that would be nifty. A Finder column (which can be activated per-directory) showing me CVS revisions and whether a file has been edited from what's on the CVS server would be cool, for example (that's just a vague idea, not a firm feature request). Don't think along the lines of "Labels", think about "Metadata" in general and what you can do with it.

(As for the comment about minimizing in place in WindowshadeX... I am *seriously* looking forward to that feature, the promise of it was actually what pushed me to finally pay for the program. I figure that'll be the last piece that lets me disable the stupid Dock forever.)

I vote for not getting to over-the-top with esoteric features, I suppose there aren't *that* many people who need CVS versions in their list view ;-)

Besides that, remember where this metadata is saved. Labels are a built-in feature of HFS, it's already there, just ignored by the Finder. Everything else suggested here is not, and had to be saved in additional files/databases (think .DS_Store files or desktop database). All that should be part of a Metadata haxie or something.

The only thing I can think of that couldn't hurt would be additional columns for type/creator codes, since those are just as built-in as labels.

And any way to change those would be extra cool since we had to wave Stuffit Magic Menu 6.5.1 good-bye (which BTW does *not* work as usual in 10.2, even with the HIToolbox link, it still needs (and only works with) Stuffit Engine v6 and doesn't use Unix commands anymore).

I think I'd use ratings in the finder even more than in iTunes ... certainly a help in identifying those files that haven't been touched for ages & which can be ditched.

skab has a point, I was just dreaming with the CVS thing. :) Though I would certainly like that in a different module.

But, the idea about the type/creator codes is great. Being able to change those right from the contextual menu would be so cool I can hardly imagine it. If it offered a friendly list where I can choose from common meanings of the codes, or choose to enter them directly, I don't think I'd be able to contain my excitement.

I think it would be easy (conceptually) to extend LX without changing the basic experience for users at all.

1. When you install LX, it would work just like it does now.

2. The only difference is in the Colors & Names panel, where just above the list of colors and names, there is a popup. Initially, it reads Labels. If you pop it up, you see this:

Labels
----------------
Add Category...

3. Choosing Add... would bring up a dialog allowing you to create a new category which would work exactly like the labels category does. Identical except for its name.

4. To be extra simple, whichever category is selected in the Prefs is the one that shows in the Finder. Better, if you're feeling ambitious, you could add a contextual menu item to the Label column header widget in the Finder view, a sub-menu that lists the categories.

For the "Simplists", the haxie works like always. For the "Pros", you've got unlimited metadata power with minimal fuss.

The only confusion I can see with this approach is that people might think "Add" adds a new color and name to the list of Label choices. It shouldn't be too hard to make sure this is clear...

Let's talk before you make a decision!

http://www.usercreations.com/spring/
http://www.usercreations.com/spring/developers/index.html

Robb

>you've got unlimited metadata power with minimal fuss.

Again, where should all this additional metadata be saved? In tons of hidden files that clutter your file system (at least in the shell)? In a big database that's just as easily corrupted as the OS 9 desktop database?

Or do you suggest a new haxie that extends HFS+ on the fly? Well, ok, and while you're at it, why not add journaling, real hard links and some other nice stuff ;-)

>you've got unlimited metadata power with minimal fuss.

Again, where should all this additional metadata be saved? In tons of hidden files that clutter your file system (at least in the shell)? In a big database that's just as easily corrupted as the OS 9 desktop database?

Or do you suggest a new haxie that extends HFS+ on the fly? Well, ok, and while you're at it, why not add journaling, real hard links and some other nice stuff ;-)

Some things are just worth saying twice :)

Again, where should... oh... never mind.

Some things are just worth saying twice :)

Yes.

BTW, special characters, like "ä" look really bad if you use them in label names. Looks like Unicode or something...

Umlauts and non-English characters were indeed broken in Labels X 1.0 contextual menu. Shame on me, as I am Russian, and use Cyrillic pretty often ;)

As for Labels X future, thank you for your input - some ideas really look interesting, but I think we will give it some more consideration before making a final decision. In the mean time, I will be working on Labels X 1.1 which will be mostly a bug-fix release.

how about a new haxie that just allows new finder columns. And then just bundle in the fact that it works with Labels X to make a searchable column. (this would sell well too, with the two haxies talking to each other, Apple loves doing this :) )

So then, we could make up our own new columns, or choose from some that Unsanity has developed, like Ratings, or viewings.

Doing it this way would have 2 seperate haxies, and keep Lables X slimmed down. I dont know a single person that KNOWS how to use his computer that doesn't worry about bloated apps. This is why i ditched ICQ when i was still on a pc.

Simple that turn BLOATED with features just cause the devs are bored and can't think of a new project are the worst.

Keep it simple. Would much rather have a rock-solid, quickly updated LabelsX than a "pro" version. What made the pre-OS X labels feature so great was its simplicity--i.e. it's flexibility to let users find their own way of putting it to use.
BTW, I love LabelsX--it even picked up the old label information from pre-OSX files!

Thanks Slava--as I promised, I registered immediately.

make it both. options are better than none. if you wanted to roll it into one app make it have an option like the classic finder for a 'simple' version.

just read through the above.. Labels X isn't really useful to me without 1) coloring the text of the filename and 2) sorting capability in column view.. without those, it's just a toy

i do think that the Mac OS X comments metadata could become the foundation for a richer "labeling" mechanism

I would pay what you asked. I loved labels and it stinks looking at those ugly colored bars on our mac pros.
Bring our labels back at any cost.
Simple or complex.
Dave