* Betr.: " Re: [tryton-dev] Better search GUI" (Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:33:05 +0200):
> On 30/09/10 13:03 +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > * Betr.: " Re: [tryton-dev] Better search GUI" (Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:38:20
> > +0200):
> > Thanks for this first plot looking promising, while I am not able to
> > contribute anything to the pyparsing problem, sorry.
> >
> > Nevertheless for me some principal questions of this thread are not yet
> > answered:
> >
> > 1) Will we lose the actual search interface, if the 'one-line-search' will
> > be implemented?
> >
> > - At first simplicity for the user will be lost, because he has to learn,
> > that specification of fields has to be done in the one-liner. While this
> > could be a rather simple learning step the search over several fields will
> > afford to learn the syntax needed. Could be too straightforward for the
> > scope of many users IMO.
> > If a user has minimal understanding of logical operators it is a very
> > smart solution, but I am pessimistic in this respect.
>
> I think now almost every body can use google. And we tried to be as closest as
> possible of this scheme by having implicite AND, automatic quote etc.
BTW I am rather surprised by the fact that there exist people not being able to
use google. Probably not our target user group, which should be instructed to
enter correct data in an ERP...
OTOH exactly google has the design I am promoting:
Simple search on one line combined with Advanced search providing a more
detailed interface.
> > 2) Will we lose all those differentiated operators like 'Begins with', 'Is'.
> > etc.?
> >
> > The ideal solution for me would be to have this one-liner-interface
> > (provided it can be done in a sufficient sophisticated way) on top of the
> > form with all other search fields (the well known search interface until
> > now) collapsed. If the search fields could be shown (extended) with a click
> > on an arrow just besides the one-liner-interface all users could have their
> > prefered interface.
>
> The goals is to get rid of the current search view because it is not powerfull
> enough, it takes too much place and it is hard to extend it (like having full
> text search).
The current proposal loses some differentiated operators, so it is less
powerful. It wouldn't take any place if being collapsed at first sight. Full
text search could be only for the one-liner.
Sticking to my proposal as indeed google referenced by you does it exactly this
way.
--
Mathias Behrle
MBSolutions
Gilgenmatten 10 A
D-79114 Freiburg
Tel: +49(761)471023
Fax: +49(761)4770816
http://m9s.biz
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
