Sonny Software

I'm not clear on which behavior is recommended by Apple's UI guidelines, but I've encountered two general trends in the use of a quick filter/search field like BE's "Search All Fields" (in List View):

- Type some text into the field and the search is applied to the currently-selected subset of the database ("groups" in BE-speak). Switch to another subset and the field is cleared, requiring you to retype the search text again if you wanted to apply it to the new group. This is how BE 9.0.4 and iTunes 6 works.

- Type some text into the field and the search is applied to the currently-selected subset of the database. Switch to another subset and the search text is retained *and applied to the newly-selected subset*. This is how Bare Bones's nifty Yojimbo works.

The second method has an obvious advantage: you can apply the same search to different subsets/groups to generate different results very quickly. I think that this behavior would be preferred in the case of BE, where applying a search to successive groups would be *very* helpful.

TH

Right now, Bookends will do this if you hold the Option key down when you switch groups. I could make that the default if people want it (it's not the default now, because I thought people would be too easily confused if they clicked on another group and no references showed up (because there were no hits in the selected group). Hence, the default to the iTunes style. What do other people think?

Jon
Sonny Software

Jon wrote:What do other people think?

I think keeping the iTunes style as default makes sense. It's nice to know about the option key option, though.

joewiz wrote:

Jon wrote:What do other people think?

I think keeping the iTunes style as default makes sense. It's nice to know about the option key option, though.

My own inclination would be the reverse. Trying to think as a user with no preconceived notion of the choices, I would assume that, if the "Search all fields" field is populated, that the contents of the field has been applied to any switch to a new Group. Option-switch to a new Group, with the effect of also clearing out the "Search all fields", seems to me more "optiony" than retaining the contents of the field and applying it to each selected group.

TH

I agree with tharpold... by the way, what's about having a "search history" (eg a pull down with the last 5 searches)?

tom

OK folks, keep those opinions coming in...

A search history isn't a bad idea, but I don't think there is a good interface element for it. We already use the magnifying glass down arrow to select the field (or Spotlight) to search, so that's out...

Jon
Sonny Software

Agree on keeping the search. Frequently happens to me i am in a group, perform a search and realize i am not in the total list, which means going there and typing in the search phrase again. Doesn't seem too logical.

Gerben

Jon wrote:OK folks, keep those opinions coming in...

A search history isn't a bad idea, but I don't think there is a good interface element for it. We already use the magnifying glass down arrow to select the field (or Spotlight) to search, so that's out...

Jon
Sonny Software

right. How about an auto complete? You enter a first letter and then you have a pull down list with the latest searches beginning with the letter you entered (similar to the URL field in eg Firefox).

tom

Hi Tom.

There is another issue. Bookends does live searches, meaning it searches as you type (it waits for a small pause, actually, but that's the general idea). So there are many "mini searches". This does not lend itself to a popup list of any kind containing previous searches.

Jon
Sonny Software

OK, I've switched the behavior in the next udpate (the Live Search field is NOT cleared when you select another group unless you hold down the Option key). Feedback is welcome when it's available (no date yet).

Jon
Sonny Software