But in the real world, titles just don't often start with their subjects and the likelihood of an alphabetical search yielding results is always less than a simple search for the same. If I feel that a user can't search, I can always provide links that do the search for them.
As for your podcasts, I wasn't even thinking of having the episode number, just something to say that "this was a podcast link" regardless of episode number. More recent links are at the top for a reason. > Basically, it's NOT that hard to do. Your response is along the lines > of "it doesn't have it now so it should always be that way." I'm not arguing how hard it is to do, I'm saying it is more complex than just adding an SQL query because there are many other places to consider the effects of that sorting. That's all, nothing more and nothing less. > You > can't really justify your approach either except that you don't > understand it. If no one in the world had done any of the things I > don't understand, we'd still be in caves. I don't accept that response. No, I UNDERSTAND it, I just think that it would be useful for almost no one almost none of the time. Unfortunately, the truth is that users often think they want things that turn out not to be so useful (thus date-based blog archives, for instance). That's why I asked for specific examples. Those examples have so for not been compelling (to me anyway). What YOU don't seem to get is that there might be people who understand your request but simply don't agree with your position regarding its usefulness :) > Again, and for the final time, I don't accept the argument that > because you don't like it, it doesn't make sense for anyone. And > that's basically the only reason not to do this any of you can come > up with. If I told my clients that, they wouldn't even bother saying > goodbye, they'd just be gone. I'm not making that argument-- I'm waiting for a convincing scenario in which alphabetic listing trumps search or where it even seems remotely useful. As a user, I am one of the group you are theorizing about, and I'm not seeing it. The converse of the "I don't like it, so it must not be useful for anyone" is your "I like it, so it must be useful for anyone"-- neither are necessarily true. They have no validity in and of themselves. > It's ordered chronologically, in > reverse order. Why? Is the last thing I entered more meaningful to me > than the first? Who made that decision? Not I. Like a LOT of decisions, this was made by the software designer. Not every aspect of every interface can be customized. That's just life. If del.icio.us is so vexing to you, and Joshua doesn't decide to see it your way, I'm sure you will find some happy alternative. That's the beauty-- no tool has to be everything to everyone, right? I do sympathize, though, having been on the opposite side of this kind of argument (in my case, after much work to get what I wanted it turned out I was wrong-- we should all be so lucky :), but I'm not sure that your hostility is helping you AT ALL. c _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.del.icio.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
