Okay, I made a version of this change on Discourse DB: http://discoursedb.org/w/index.php?title=London&action=formedit
Does this improve things at all? Or would a more radical change be better? -Yaron On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, in the change I'm talking about, the "local search" input would not > be on the map, but under the map, just as it is now - only the text would be > different. > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sergey Chernyshev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
