Well, in the change I'm talking about, the "local search" input would not be on the map, but under the map, just as it is now - only the text would be different.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sergey Chernyshev < [email protected]> wrote: > Yep, that's what what I was actually looking for - to have interface like > local search (text field and button on the map) but make it perform > geocoding instead. > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah, that LocalSearch is a very intuitive interface. The fact that you >> can't set the text, and thus change the language, might be a deal-breaker, >> though. >> >> What about just making the existing address-lookup input look more like >> LocalSearch's? I'm imaging something that looks like this: >> >> ---------------------- >> | Search the map | Search >> ---------------------- >> >> (Hopefully that fixed-width formatting showed up correctly.) The input >> itself contains a gray "Search the map" string, that disappears as soon as >> the user clicks in the input; then there's a "Search" button or link next to >> it that the user presses to do the actual lookup. >> >> Potential solution? >> >> -Yaron >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Sergey Chernyshev < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yep, I agree - clearing the input seems odd if you clear the input, but >>> if it's kept, then it's not clear to the user why that address is not saved, >>> but coordinates instead - this can be solved by the in-pan control like >>> Local Search or similar where it's sort-of clear that this window is only >>> for looking stuff up. >>> >>> As for reverse geocoding, I think it well depends on the use case - for >>> things like specifying location for the event, it makes sense to know where >>> it is but not knowing the address or another example - when you need to post >>> location of the address of the Deli you go to every day - you know where it >>> is on the map, but has no idea about coordinates or address. The question is >>> if it should be used for entering map coordinates or for entering addresses >>> (another type of data). >>> >>> Sergey >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for this feedback. The first suggestion - do automatic lookups, >>>> clear the input as soon as a lookup succeeds - seems odd. If you type in a >>>> whole address, then realize there was a typo in the number, you'll have to >>>> type it all again, no? >>>> >>>> Ooh, that LocalSearch control is neat - really neat. I've never seen it >>>> before. It might be worth looking to see if it can be integrated with the >>>> rest of the form input. One possible downside, though, is that the text it >>>> uses (like "search the map") is probably not internationalizable. >>>> >>>> It might make sense to increase the map size. This is already a settable >>>> parameter, by the way. >>>> >>>> Reverse geocoding, AKA finding a street address from a selected point, >>>> might be more trouble than it's worth - if the place the user is entering >>>> has a street address, it seems like the chance would be much higher that >>>> the >>>> user knows that address than that he/she knows its location on the map. >>>> Plus, if the user wants to enter just coordinates and not an address, say, >>>> for privacy reasons (if they're entering their own location), this might >>>> just confuse the issue. Yes, you could argue that entering coordinates is >>>> itself giving up your privacy, but I would guess that at least some people >>>> enter a point in the general area of where they are, just so they can show >>>> up on a map. >>>> >>>> -Yaron >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Sergey Chernyshev < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was terribly disgusted with the interface when I started to use it on >>>>> TechPresentations.org - it definitely needs some improvement. >>>>> >>>>> My thoughts - as tosfos suggests, it's better to update non-editable >>>>> area based on either user clicking on the map or by using lookup. In >>>>> addition to that I would suggest that lookup should happen when field is >>>>> changed, without user even pressing a button - once lookup is successful, >>>>> it >>>>> should clear up lookup field. The only question is how to separate direct >>>>> input from looked up input - we should either rely on Google's geocoder to >>>>> return what was entered or try to parse the string and see if it's >>>>> coordinate (first one is easier and might suffice, second one helps not to >>>>> rely on Google geocoder service to be constantly available). Another >>>>> addition might be have same configuration, but to add in-place editing for >>>>> the coordinates value if the lable is clicked. >>>>> >>>>> Another alternative is to use LocalSearch control on the map instead of >>>>> lookup field: >>>>> http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/examples/control-localsearch.html- >>>>> it's quite neat and might be what we need. If this functionality is not >>>>> what user wants, than similar control just for geocoding might need to be >>>>> developed. >>>>> >>>>> In addition to this, I think default size of the map should be >>>>> increased significantly because right now it's too easy to move the cursor >>>>> beyond visible area and it become unclear if coordinates changed or you >>>>> need >>>>> to click some point on the map to change those coordinates. Maybe it's >>>>> worth >>>>> showing coordinates of current cursor to give user feedback that he needs >>>>> to >>>>> click the map to change the resulting coordinates. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I wonder if it makes sense to use reverse geocoding, new feature >>>>> of Google's - >>>>> http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/services.html#ReverseGeocodingor >>>>> maybe it's worth creating separate extension similar to >>>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Google_Geocoder >>>>> >>>>> Sergey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Yaron Koren <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tosfos - that's an interesting suggestion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Barry - well, even if the map input becomes user-configurable, I'd >>>>>> still like the default to be as nice as possible. But I guess your sample >>>>>> code was also a recommendation for the default layout and text. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Yaron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Barry <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm in favor of giving the form designer as much control as possible. >>>>>>> Could the "field" be entered as three coordinated fields? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to: >>>>>>> | '''Geographic coordinate''' in the form "<nowiki>45.4564°N, >>>>>>> -23.456°E</nowiki>". >>>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap}}} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about adding: >>>>>>> | '''Enter address of location.''' >>>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap_address}}} >>>>>>> |- >>>>>>> | '''Or, enter geographic coordinate''' in the form >>>>>>> "<nowiki>45.4564°N, -23.456°E</nowiki>". >>>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap_coordinate}}} >>>>>>> |- >>>>>>> | '''Or, find the location on the map'''. >>>>>>> {{{field|coordinate|input type=googlemap_map}}} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could link them together by the field name and still support >>>>>>> the existing version as with type="googlemap" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could even allow the form designer to include only one or two of >>>>>>> the fields, >>>>>>> so a cartographer could use the coordinate field and leave off the >>>>>>> address. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I know this is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than >>>>>>> rearranging the form elements, >>>>>>> but you asked...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Barry >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 26, 12:49 pm, Yaron Koren <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I've gotten the sense recently that some or many users find the >>>>>>> Semantic >>>>>>> > Google Maps form input confusing, especially when they first try to >>>>>>> use it. >>>>>>> > To refresh your memory, here's an example of the form input in >>>>>>> action: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Fe_Complex&action=for. >>>>>>> .. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > It consists of three parts: an input of geographical coordinates >>>>>>> (which is >>>>>>> > what actually gets saved to the template), a map input (which also >>>>>>> sets the >>>>>>> > coordinates), and an entry for placing an address, then looking up >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> > address (which sets the values of both the coordinate and map >>>>>>> inputs). With >>>>>>> > that many inputs, and the lack of any explanatory text, it's no >>>>>>> wonder that >>>>>>> > some people get confused. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > So: does anyone have any thoughts on ways the input could be >>>>>>> improved? >>>>>>> > Perhaps the two text entries should be reversed, with the address >>>>>>> lookup on >>>>>>> > top? Or maybe one of the text entries should be placed to the right >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> > map, instead of the top or bottom? Maybe "look up coordinates" >>>>>>> should be >>>>>>> > changed to "look up address"? Or maybe that text should appear, >>>>>>> unlinked, >>>>>>> > before the entry, with something like "Go" appearing after the >>>>>>> entry as the >>>>>>> > actual link? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Any thoughts are welcome. Also, if you know of any existing inputs >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> > web that do something similar, that would be helpful to know about >>>>>>> too. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>>> > Yaron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sergey Chernyshev >>>>> http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sergey Chernyshev >>> http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Sergey Chernyshev > http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Semantic Forms" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/semantic-forms?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
