> Highlander II writes:
> >Sort of a combination 'organizational tool' and 'filter list'. I'd like to
> >have a way to keep the two separate, though it's not imperative for my use
> >of the service.
> >
> >Of course, I could be the only one who uses filters this way, but I thought
> >I'd toss it out there, in case I'm not. =)
>
> You're not the only one
Me, three. Which brings up a feature request which I submitted to
Support, so presumably the people combing Support for good ideas will
find it, but I figure I'd plug it here.
It would be really cool if sets of filters could be user-defined such
that membership of a trusted/watched user was required of
one-and-only-one filter. This could be done entirely at the interface
layer for managing groups and adding/modifying friends
(watchees/trustees), and be implemented by a convention that uses a
prefix and a dot to group filters.
Example and use case:
Let's say I have four "read" ("watch"?) filters, called north, south,
east and west. Also, I have a bunch of "access" ("trust"?) filters,
and they all have names, too, like "bob's birthday", "nudes", and
"knitting".
In my fantasy, I could rename just my read/watch filters:
foo.north
foo.south
foo.east
foo.west
The rest of the names stay the same and those filters are unaffected.
And from then on:
1) if I try to add a new watchee without assigning him to one of those
four filters, DW throws an error, "You haven't assigned Soandso to any
'foo' filter. Please pick a 'foo' filter for this user." This makes
it impossible for me to forget to add him to at least one reading
filter. ("Huh, I added him months ago, and he's never posted since.
Wonder what's with that?")
2) if I try to remove Soandso from a read filters without previously
adding him to another, either I get a similar error ("You don't have
Soandso assigned to any 'foo' filters. Please add him to a 'foo'
filter.") or I simply get a persistent error message at the top of the
manage groups page, "Soandso is a 'foo' orphan! Soandso does not
appear on any 'foo' filter. Please add Soandso to the appropriate
'foo' filter.") This makes it either impossible or just much harder
to accidentally orphan a subscription (which right now is a trivial
misclick error to make, yea, I am the voice of experience.)
Also, then the interface maybe could be smartened, such that if you
define such excluvise groupings, the interface can present you with a
list of users and their exclusive group as pulldown menus, making it
much faster and easier (and, I think, 508 compliant/non-AJAxy) to
shift members around between exclusive filters.
Meanwhile, all filters without a dot (or whatever separator) continue
to work normally, thus making it completely invisible to anyone who
doesn't want to use this feature (so long as they don't use the
separator character in their filter names).
-- Siderea
_______________________________________________
dw-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
