On 23 November 2012 04:45, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > ike I mentioned before , even if queries and reports are yet another > kind of search engine , there is a difference between them and free > text search . For instance , reports and queries have some focus on > presentation , hence visible columns may be selected to satisfy some > information needs . Nonetheless in free text search findability is the > main goal over everything else . That's why the first point mentioned > above does not apply . > > The second suggestion I made seems more appropriate for products , > milestones , ... but in the case of tickets , for instance they may be > annotated (in a similar way to Google search results I mentioned > above) with # of comments , # of attachments , ... each pointing to > the specific section within ticket view . > > To make myself clear , IMO none of them is suitable for query or >
I agree that reports serve a different purpose (or rather will do by our previous conversations). Search and Custom Query are very similar though in regards to the users initial intention for using them. One issue with Custom Query is that it expects the user to know which criteria to use beforehand - there's no real discoverability. Facets are a great solution for that. They suggest what factors are in common for all search results and allow the user to discover useful further filters. In addition to screen size, there's a big difference of context on mobile and desktop search/queries: Most likely users will use mobile phones to do navigational searches or check something quickly, not go through the elaborate workflow of iterating query context and making batch changes. It's okay if the experience is different at first because it will take us a long time to refine the system sufficiently to expose all of the functionality on mobiles. That shouldn't stop progress on desktop or laptop sized screens. - Joe
