Re: [Usability] Some usability feedback

[Maurizio Colucci <seguso forever tin it>]

Kalle Vahlman wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:52:41 +0100, Maurizio Colucci
> <seguso forever tin it> wrote:
>  
>
> > Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > For showing the results, hiding the non-matching items sounds like a
> > > bad idea. If I type 'abd' when I really mean 'abc', it would hide the
> > > real target. But the worst thing is that it looks like the items are
> > > disappearing, possibly without any indication why this is happening or
> > > a obvious way to cancel the process.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > I must say I am not that convinced. Suppose the quick-search box is
> > always visible, and that it _blinks_ very apparently when not empty.
> >    
>
> <sarcasm>
> Or perhaps it could stick needles in the users eyes as a reminder
> </sarcasm>
>
>  
>
> > Then it seems to me that both problems you raised are solved: 1. the
> > user could fail to notice he typed `abd' instead of `abc', and 2. he
> > would never be puzzled why some files have disappeared, because he is
> > constantly reminded the files are being narrowed.
> >    
>
> For point 1, the items would still be hidden and the user would have
> to correct it before the right item is visible again. For point 2,
> sure. If the user is aware that they come back when he/she clears the
> search box.
>  
Of course he is. Search boxes are everywhere... and the search box will 
have some label and tooltip.

>  
>
> > > Instead, the view could be altered so that the items having exact
> > > match could be at 100% opacity, items having partial match at 66% and
> > > the rest at 33%.
> > >
> > >      
> > But, most of the time a search matches very few items. Most items would
> > be greyed out, and it would be difficult to locate the important ones.
> >    
>
> With "exact match" I mean "has the searched string somewhere in the
> name", not "is the searched string". So anything with the exact typed
> string in it would still be at 100% opacity.
>
>  
>
> > The user would need to scroll a lot, or you would have to supply "goto
> > next" button, which would complicate things. And for what?
> >    
>
> If you missed the sentence below, the items would be arranged so that
> the exact matches are on the top and partial below them (and the rest
> of course below those).
>  
Thanks, I understand now. Somehow I had missed you wanted to alter the 
order of the items.

Well, that's an interesting solution. A minor drawback could be that the 
sort criterion and the search box are no more orthogonal. Sorting would 
be disabled when nautilus is presenting a search result. Nautilus would 
need to have two distinct configurations:  normal and search-result. 
Also, list-view could need different columns.

>  
>
> > > Also, since we are categorizing the items, they
> > > should be also ordered by relevance. This would have the following
> > > benefits:
> > >
> > > - visual feedback of the matches
> > > - no files are lost from the view
> > > - sequental matches would show up
> > > - typing errors have less effect on the results
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > I'm afraid I don't follow you here :)
> >    
>
> Hope I was able to clear that up?
>
>  
>
> > (I also don't get why you think that who needs a recursive search, and
> > is using spatial mode, should not be able to have the search folder
> > entered automatically in gnome-search-tool.)
> >    
>
> I don't think I have ever made such a statement. In fact, I think that
> something like ctrl-f should definitely do that.
>  
Sorry, I must have misunderstood a sentence of yours.

Cheers,
Mau