Yep, that's what what I was actually looking for - to have interface like local search (text field and button on the map) but make it perform geocoding instead.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, that LocalSearch is a very intuitive interface. The fact that you > can't set the text, and thus change the language, might be a deal-breaker, > though. > > What about just making the existing address-lookup input look more like > LocalSearch's? I'm imaging something that looks like this: > > ---------------------- > | Search the map | Search > ---------------------- > > (Hopefully that fixed-width formatting showed up correctly.) The input > itself contains a gray "Search the map" string, that disappears as soon as > the user clicks in the input; then there's a "Search" button or link next to > it that the user presses to do the actual lookup. > > Potential solution? > > -Yaron > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Sergey Chernyshev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Yep, I agree - clearing the input seems odd if you clear the input, but if >> it's kept, then it's not clear to the user why that address is not saved, >> but coordinates instead - this can be solved by the in-pan control like >> Local Search or similar where it's sort-of clear that this window is only >> for looking stuff up. >> >> As for reverse geocoding, I think it well depends on the use case - for >> things like specifying location for the event, it makes sense to know where >> it is but not knowing the address or another example - when you need to post >> location of the address of the Deli you go to every day - you know where it >> is on the map, but has no idea about coordinates or address. The question is >> if it should be used for entering map coordinates or for entering addresses >> (another type of data). >> >> Sergey >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for this feedback. The first suggestion - do automatic lookups, >>> clear the input as soon as a lookup succeeds - seems odd. If you type in a >>> whole address, then realize there was a typo in the number, you'll have to >>> type it all again, no? >>> >>> Ooh, that LocalSearch control is neat - really neat. I've never seen it >>> before. It might be worth looking to see if it can be integrated with the >>> rest of the form input. One possible downside, though, is that the text it >>> uses (like "search the map") is probably not internationalizable. >>> >>> It might make sense to increase the map size. This is already a settable >>> parameter, by the way. >>> >>> Reverse geocoding, AKA finding a street address from a selected point, >>> might be more trouble than it's worth - if the place the user is entering >>> has a street address, it seems like the chance would be much higher that the >>> user knows that address than that he/she knows its location on the map. >>> Plus, if the user wants to enter just coordinates and not an address, say, >>> for privacy reasons (if they're entering their own location), this might >>> just confuse the issue. Yes, you could argue that entering coordinates is >>> itself giving up your privacy, but I would guess that at least some people >>> enter a point in the general area of where they are, just so they can show >>> up on a map. >>> >>> -Yaron >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Sergey Chernyshev < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I was terribly disgusted with the interface when I started to use it on >>>> TechPresentations.org - it definitely needs some improvement. >>>> >>>> My thoughts - as tosfos suggests, it's better to update non-editable >>>> area based on either user clicking on the map or by using lookup. In >>>> addition to that I would suggest that lookup should happen when field is >>>> changed, without user even pressing a button - once lookup is successful, >>>> it >>>> should clear up lookup field. The only question is how to separate direct >>>> input from looked up input - we should either rely on Google's geocoder to >>>> return what was entered or try to parse the string and see if it's >>>> coordinate (first one is easier and might suffice, second one helps not to >>>> rely on Google geocoder service to be constantly available). Another >>>> addition might be have same configuration, but to add in-place editing for >>>> the coordinates value if the lable is clicked. >>>> >>>> Another alternative is to use LocalSearch control on the map instead of >>>> lookup field: >>>> http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/examples/control-localsearch.html- >>>> it's quite neat and might be what we need. If this functionality is not >>>> what user wants, than similar control just for geocoding might need to be >>>> developed. >>>> >>>> In addition to this, I think default size of the map should be increased >>>> significantly because right now it's too easy to move the cursor beyond >>>> visible area and it become unclear if coordinates changed or you need to >>>> click some point on the map to change those coordinates. Maybe it's worth >>>> showing coordinates of current cursor to give user feedback that he needs >>>> to >>>> click the map to change the resulting coordinates. >>>> >>>> BTW, I wonder if it makes sense to use reverse geocoding, new feature of >>>> Google's - >>>> http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/services.html#ReverseGeocodingor >>>> maybe it's worth creating separate extension similar to >>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Google_Geocoder >>>> >>>> Sergey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tosfos - that's an interesting suggestion. >>>>> >>>>> Barry - well, even if the map input becomes user-configurable, I'd >>>>> still like the default to be as nice as possible. But I guess your sample >>>>> code was also a recommendation for the default layout and text. >>>>> >>>>> -Yaron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Barry <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm in favor of giving the form designer as much control as possible. >>>>>> Could the "field" be entered as three coordinated fields? >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to: >>>>>> | '''Geographic coordinate''' in the form "<nowiki>45.4564°N, >>>>>> -23.456°E</nowiki>". >>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap}}} >>>>>> >>>>>> How about adding: >>>>>> | '''Enter address of location.''' >>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap_address}}} >>>>>> |- >>>>>> | '''Or, enter geographic coordinate''' in the form >>>>>> "<nowiki>45.4564°N, -23.456°E</nowiki>". >>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap_coordinate}}} >>>>>> |- >>>>>> | '''Or, find the location on the map'''. >>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap_map}}} >>>>>> >>>>>> You could link them together by the field name and still support >>>>>> the existing version as with type="googlemap" >>>>>> >>>>>> You could even allow the form designer to include only one or two of >>>>>> the fields, >>>>>> so a cartographer could use the coordinate field and leave off the >>>>>> address. >>>>>> >>>>>> (I know this is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than >>>>>> rearranging the form elements, >>>>>> but you asked...) >>>>>> >>>>>> - Barry >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 26, 12:49 pm, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I've gotten the sense recently that some or many users find the >>>>>> Semantic >>>>>> > Google Maps form input confusing, especially when they first try to >>>>>> use it. >>>>>> > To refresh your memory, here's an example of the form input in >>>>>> action: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Fe_Complex&action=for. >>>>>> .. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It consists of three parts: an input of geographical coordinates >>>>>> (which is >>>>>> > what actually gets saved to the template), a map input (which also >>>>>> sets the >>>>>> > coordinates), and an entry for placing an address, then looking up >>>>>> that >>>>>> > address (which sets the values of both the coordinate and map >>>>>> inputs). With >>>>>> > that many inputs, and the lack of any explanatory text, it's no >>>>>> wonder that >>>>>> > some people get confused. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So: does anyone have any thoughts on ways the input could be >>>>>> improved? >>>>>> > Perhaps the two text entries should be reversed, with the address >>>>>> lookup on >>>>>> > top? Or maybe one of the text entries should be placed to the right >>>>>> of the >>>>>> > map, instead of the top or bottom? Maybe "look up coordinates" >>>>>> should be >>>>>> > changed to "look up address"? Or maybe that text should appear, >>>>>> unlinked, >>>>>> > before the entry, with something like "Go" appearing after the entry >>>>>> as the >>>>>> > actual link? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Any thoughts are welcome. Also, if you know of any existing inputs >>>>>> on the >>>>>> > web that do something similar, that would be helpful to know about >>>>>> too. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>> > Yaron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sergey Chernyshev >>>> http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sergey Chernyshev >> http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ >> >> >> > > > > -- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Semantic Forms" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/semantic-forms?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
