I can't really follow your second paragraph as I don't see the logic of including something red when not-red is selected. But, in regard to your first paragraph, I think you get what you want by just preselecting all facet values, and allowing the user to _uncheck_ red if they want to exclude that one. In your facet tag, just add ex:selection="red;blue;green;yellow" and it'll start off with those selected.
(note the following inconsistency-for-good-reason in exhibit: if _no_ value is selected for a facet, then in fact it is as if _every_ value is selected. For facets with selections, only items that match one of the selections will be shown. But if we applied this without exception, then a facet without selections would make everything vanish---not a good default. So, we have an exception for an "empty" facet. However, this does force a dramatic change when you take an empty facet and select one value; suddenly it switches from "as if all values are selected" to just the single selected value. If instead you start with all values selected, then unselected one will do what you want) lbjvg wrote: > Thanks David (H & K) - I haven't worked with collections before - > thanks for bringing them to my attention. My big idea was to - on the > fly - have the user be able to exclude any color listed - as if "red" > in the <div>'s above were replaced with a variable that could change > on the user's whim. So, it seems like a hard nut to crack and I can > live without that feature. > > I can think of a weaker solution involving a massively enlarged json > database. - so instead of being totally exclusionary, "not_red" would > be a feature like any other - that is the universe of colors includes > red, not_red, green, not_green, blue, not_blue and so on. So the > "not_color" choices would be listed right along with the usual color > names of red, green, blue and so on. This involves analyzing and > addending the json database to include the 'not_color' tags as > appropriate. > > So if 'not_red' is selected then of course those items would be > included in the view. But this is not exclusionary - things with red > in them will still be present in the view list if "green" is selected > and "red" also just also happened to be one of the Color tags for that > item. (However, If the json database were completely filled out in > this way it should not be possible to select "red" and "not_red" > together). In general, I suppose then the user could sort the view by > "Color" and at least all of the "not_reds" would be grouped > together. > > Two problems with this approach - the larger database size and > confusing the hell out of the user who (rightly) expects "not_red" to > be exclusionary. > > Thanks for helping to clarify the issue. - Jim > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIMILE Widgets" group. To post to this group, send email to simile-widgets@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to simile-widgets+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/simile-widgets?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
