I’d rather see something like Trac’s custom query builder, eg. http://trac.edgewall.org/query
Maybe it doesn’t need to be quite as robust to start, but a few things I like that Trac does that’s different from how I interpret the mock are (1) it only shows elements that are actually part of the filter, and (2) clear delineation between ANDs and ORs. (aside) A "nice to have” for down the road would be to build a visible text representation of the search as you add filters with the UI. -- Chris Tsai SourceForge.net Support [email protected] ctsai-sf on irc.freenode.net On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Wayne Witzel III wrote: > The rest of my email got cut off and I don’t feel like typing it again .. but > +1 to approach with more UI work. > > -- > Wayne Witzel III (@wwitzel3) > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > http://pieceofpy.com > > > On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 at 10:51 , Wayne Witzel III wrote: > > > +1 to the idea of an easy to use filtering interface. > > > > The example UI is a little confusing, with the search input above the > > filtering options, it also appears you have to re-submit the search after > > you add filtering options. > > Looking at other sites, I see a common pattern for simple filtering (which > > compliments robust searching) > > > > - Obvious that a filter is being used. > > - Easy to clear filters > > - Single click to apply a filter > > > > I see the example UI as just creating a UI around the solr syntax, but I > > think creating a more minimal UI and incorporating it in to / just below > > above the ticket listing header (like the Advanced filtering for browsing > > sf.net (http://sf.net)) is a better approach. It would be intuitive to the > > user and could auto-populate with only values that exist to be filtered. > > Avoiding typos in a label filter for example. > > > > -- > > Wayne Witzel III (@wwitzel3) > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > http://pieceofpy.com > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 at 09:57 , Dave Brondsema wrote: > > > > > Any opinions on this before implementation begins? > > > > > > On 10/31/13 3:32 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote: > > > > We'd like to develop a UI for filtering tickets as a simple alternative > > > > to using > > > > solr syntax. This should be helpful for those that don't know solr > > > > syntax, and > > > > easier than learning it, for the simple cases. > > > > > > > > I did a quick in-browser mock of drop-downs for various fields, but it > > > > doesn't > > > > look very clean, and it takes up a lot of room: > > > > http://screencast.com/t/uUL2VeLybg > > > > > > > > Side note: existing elements in that area could be improved: > > > > * move "showing X of Y" to after the tickets, alongside pagination, > > > > like we do > > > > on other places > > > > * move "show deleted tickets" to after search help button > > > > * make search text box even a little bigger > > > > > > > > Since we probably only would show filter choices for the fields that > > > > have their > > > > column shown, I was thinking perhaps we could put the filtering as part > > > > of the > > > > column header. This could save space by moving each drop-down filter > > > > into a > > > > per-column dialog that is not shown by default. It's also contextually > > > > relevant > > > > to associate the fields with the columns. I think this would end up very > > > > similar to the auto-filter feature on most spreadsheets. > > > > > > > > That would require more UI work for the dialog and its contents, filter > > > > icon in > > > > header, etc. Clicking on the column header currently sorts the column, > > > > so we'd > > > > have to see if that still made sense or not. I imagine the filters > > > > would append > > > > new clauses to the solr query, but it might get real weird if we don't > > > > put in > > > > the extra work to parse a given solr query to know what filtering is > > > > active. > > > > https://github.com/evolvingweb/ajax-solr/ might be worth exploring. Also > > > > separating the user-entered query from the filter query would help some > > > > but > > > > still would require some parsing. Solr seems to support this concept of > > > > 2 query > > > > params, but I haven't used it myself > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CommonQueryParameters#fq > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dave Brondsema : [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > http://www.brondsema.net : personal > > > http://www.splike.com : programming > > > <>< > > > > > > > > > > > >
