Notice how the author/creator is just a nested folder called"other" in their arbitrary categories , and know where you stand in their conception.
Not sure why people keep applauding this post of yours, when, factually speaking, it is completely inaccurate. "Other" folder? Arbitrary categories? The first doesn't exist, and the second is provably wrong.
User content is stored in "User Library" (quite a far cry from 'Other'...) which exists under "Places." Partner content, in case you haven't noticed, also exists under "Places." So the user content ('user library') and partner content ('packs') are nested into exactly the same location within the browser.
Explanation: Up until a very late Beta any user content
saved in places appeared in an "Others" folder. That is - if you saved an Analog preset it appeared in Categories/Analog/Others, alongside any other uncategorised content from packs, or users. The folder Other is now gone it seems, user content is placed in the root of the category. This must have been a late change.
My point stands: that the initial conception to have an author folder grouped anonymously with tonality folders was borne out of very peculiar idea of "what users want from a dynamic browser"
You say the categories are "provably
" not arbitrary?
choose your own categories?
Can you add or delete categories?
Can you add a top-level categoric filter grouping of "My Live Presets"
Can you add a second Level filter/folder grouping of "My Live Presets"
the categories and sub-sections are not editable, they are chosen by Ableton.
The "categories" section above both -- while very clunky for sure -- is designed as a tagging-based system
Categories scans OS folders to use them in the categorisation scheme, but it's not a tagging system. A true taxonomic system would be flexible and non-exclusive, where tags for tonality would allow a sound to be both Bass and Brass (and Synth .. etc.), not to exclusively belong to just one tonality.
They created a DB driven browser to replace the limited hierarchy of the OS file-tree, but then imposed a hierarchic categorisation on it that we cannot change! I am specifically talking about Categories here. Why create this new dynamic and Database driven browser if the part that is most dynamic is the most fixed and inflexible?
Where is the advantage for the user of these pre-chosen 'dynamic' Categories section? That they are learnable ? What then of the case of "all alone pad" (the pad which exists in Ambient and evolving), how do we learn this system? How is it more powerful than a plain OS tree heirarchy?
... a tagging-based system that globally references -all- the content stored throughout the 'places,' be it from a partner or from a user. I don't think it works very well, but it certainly doesn't discriminate against the user the way you apparently think it does.
Well, I agree that since they have removed "/Others" in the release version it certainly means that user creations are now at least
at the child level of each category rather than relegated to anonymity. However, my point was that different users prioritise different things in different circumstances - and that is each user's core browsing/searching requirement.
When they were specifying this dynamic database driven browser, Their starting point was to please a wide variety of user-types trying to filter a massive amount of disparate data in varied circumstances. To address this varied usage Ableton gave us this browser.
It sits on a big database and ought to allow us to add categories, groupings, taxonomic attributes, all quickly and to our requirements.It ought to allow us to order and present our content as we need it.
I am glad that many users like the browser, however - for me it has made me stick with Live 8. Please try to understand that the nature of presenting a FIXED browser means for some it will NOT work with them, but against them. This seems odd for a dynamic DB driven browser.