Re: [Evolution-hackers] Category Searching

[Bryan Clark <clarkbw clarkson edu>]

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 12:10 +0200, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
> Hm, what if we include all categories the user has "seen" - I mean, all
> of the "native" evo-supplied ones plus any category that has been seen
> in an address card in addition to those? So that Evo would "remember"
> any special ones once it has been encountered once..? Is this something
> that could work?

I like this idea, it would keep the list simple until the user
complicates it on their own with lots of their categories.  Somethings
related that might need to be worked out would be: How is the category
list manageable?   How long is a category kept after it hasn't been
seen?  Do we keep a category that's only been seen once?

But I think the idea is in a good direction for this problem.

> The long list issue is something that sucks though, do we need to use
> autocompleting combobox-like widget instead of the option menu?
> Something like the composer uses for To: -field etc?

I disagree with this, Category systems are not really triggered via
recall methods, rather recognition (i.e. one does not remember/'recall'
all the categories they have created, but 'recognizes' them when they
see them and probably recalls what they are for after).   

The composer To: field can rely on user recall since people need to know
who they are emailing almost before they start and as long as they have
a cue that is close to the address, like name/nickname/email-address the
auto-complete can assist with getting the address exactly right.
Categories on the other hand are not as easy to remember as peoples
names, for obvious reasons like people are real things that you might
have some kind of relationship with vs. categories are made up meta-
information types.  Imagine if it was Work - Project A or Ximian -
Project A... each category require you to type ahead... then delete and
try again, maybe it was Novell - Project A? :-)

I'd recommend a Category system using drop-down options.  In order to
lighten the amount of categories I think we could do a few things.  

	1. Go with a small finite set 
	2. Create easy way to modify the set
	3. Use the 'seen' method tigert suggested

Maybe a combination of those?  1 + 3?  There's probably lots of other
ways, if we worked on some use cases for this it could simplify things a
lot.

> > > 3. Make category searching use a user entered string to search with
> > > (just like name or summary).
> > > 
> > do this one.
> 
> This would be a lot simpler, agreed. 

I'd say simpler to implement, but I don't think it's simpler in terms of
the interface.  Sorry to jump into the thread late.

Cheers,
~ Bryan