Opinions wanted on details of new GUI features

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

What should a search for 'col:no' return

Only columns set "No"

What should col:false return

Only columns that are not set. This seems most consistent with other "false" searches. For the casual user, the idea of searching for "false" comes as a surprise, but when you tell them it means it's "empty" they quickly learn to use it to find empty Comments and Covers.

What should col:true return

Columns that are set (both Yes and No). This seems most consistent with the "false" search. "True" means the column is not empty.

When considering the choice, note that if col:yes matches only columns containing 'Yes' and col:no only columns containing No, then:
- a search for 'not col:yes' would get both No and not-set.
- a search for 'not col:no' would get both Yes and not-set.
- 'not (col:yes or col:no)' would get only not-set columns.

That's what an advanced level user would probably expect, and the less advanced user probably wouldn't structure any searches like that.

Alternative: the value No goes away, leaving as possible values Yes and not-set, making the column effectively two-valued.

I don't like this option. It drastically reduces the value of the column. Anyone who wants this behavior can easily globally set all to "No" before they start.

2. Text/multiple and text/single columns will appear in the tag browser as categories. Should they disappear when they are removed from the GUI (config/interface/uncheck column)? If so, should the standard categories also disappear if unchecked? For example, if I take Publisher off the GUI, should it also disappear from the tags browser?

IMHO - No.

The question: how should a restriction be visually indicated? Options I have thought of: a) set the 'number of books' text next to the search box to 'restricted' instead of 'all books', b) color that same box/text (what color)?, or c) be indicated by the fact that the restriction selection box has something in it. Ideas?

All of the above - Yellow. My initial thought is that I'd like the search box, the saved search box and the restriction box all to be visually indicated by color when a restriction is in effect. I can see myself wondering why my search for X is failing when a restriction that excludes X is in effect. Having color at the search and saved search would remind me that I already have the restriction operating when I go to search for something within that restricted set.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

2. Yes. If I've removed a column from the GUI, that means I don't need or want to deal with it, and that includes having it sneak back in via the tags browser.

My answer was "No" on this. The Preferences just say "select visible columns" with the checkboxes. I still use the data in those columns. Since the column order doesn't seem to be adjustable, I often uncheck less commonly used columns so that I can see the data I want to see in the GUI in a narrower width. I often have another window open to one side of Calibre's main GUI window. It may be a folder of books that I'm dragging into Calibre, or metadata.db open in an SQL browser and I want to see the important GUI columns in Calibre and the adjacent window at the same time on my screen.

I still want the unchecked columns accessible in the tag browser. For example, I often have the tags column turned off. It's not of any real value to sort on, and it is too long to read easily. However, I still use the tag browser.

[Starson17]

Yes/No/? would work fine, and you're right, the searching would be more intuitive.

My gut feeling is that "Yes/No/?" is confusing. The "?" looks like some kind of wildcard or maybe part of an SQL query of some sort. I don't equate it to "empty." All the other fields in Calibre can be searched for empty with the keyword "false" and not-empty with "true." While that behavior is not immediately apparent to the casual user, once it's explained, it's quickly understood. I don't object to equating a search for "?" to "false," but I wouldn't display it that way, and if you're going to do that, why not equate other things, like "NULL" or "EMPTY" etc.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Starson17

I still want the unchecked columns accessible in the tag browser. For example, I often have the tags column turned off. It's not of any real value to sort on, and it is too long to read easily. However, I still use the tag browser.

I could see that working if the tags column was treated as a special case -- its tags would be in the tag browser even if it was turned off.

I'm big on user options. What about three states? Visible main/tag, visible tag only, and completely invisible?

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Since the column order doesn't seem to be adjustable

The column order is adjustable. The little green arrowheads beside the box containing the checkboxes move the selected column up or down. The highest is displayed first, etc.

[Xenophon]

re Q3: Perhaps you could display the number of books as "275 of 3000" or whatever. That shows both the currently available number and the total. Using this idea, with no restrictions the number of books would be "3000"; with a restriction it would be "x of y". Note that it should be perfectly OK for that to be "3000 of 3000" if I choose a 'restriction' that happens to select all books!

Xenophon

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by chaley

The column order is adjustable. The little green arrowheads beside the box containing the checkboxes move the selected column up or down. The highest is displayed first, etc.

Great - I never thought to look there. I was trying to pull the columns left/right in the GUI.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

re Q3: Perhaps you could display the number of books as "275 of 3000" or whatever. That shows both the currently available number and the total. Using this idea, with no restrictions the number of books would be "3000"; with a restriction it would be "x of y". Note that it should be perfectly OK for that to be "3000 of 3000" if I choose a 'restriction' that happens to select all books!
Xenophon

That works well for me. One alteration might be to say "275 of all" when no restriction is in use. That, plus coloring it something (yellow as starson17 suggested?) should do it.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by rtype

This Sounds like a great feature, looking forward to seeing it.

1> I would go with the Alternative, i.e. it is either set or not.

for 2 main reasons,
a> If you want to be able to display 3 states on an UI you cannot use a checkbox, which is the IMHO clearest way to display a Boolean value. and the easiest for a user to interact with.
b> While the concept of null or not set is clear to programmers, it has been my experience that it causes confusion with end users.

Just my 2 cents.

Ditto , Seconded ..whatever

[Starson17]

1> I would go with the Alternative, i.e. it is either set or not.

Originally Posted by theducks

Ditto , Seconded ..whatever

Here's why I disagree. Suppose I want to add a field to keep track of this data bit:

Mom has read this book. Y/N

Now think about a large collection. I know Mom hasn't read some books, and has read some others. How do I set this field for the other books? I could default to No, but then it's incorrect on everything she's read. I really want to not buy a copy for her of anything she's already read, but I need to find books she really hasn't read. I've got no way to keep track of which field is a true No, and which simply is due to my lack of information.

Tri-Valued is far more useful. If I want 2-valued, I just highlight all, bulk edit and set it to default N or Y.

Most of the time, these custom fields will get added to an existing database where the user won't have time to fill in every record correctly.

[discourse]

Would it be possible to add a 'bookshelf' look similar to Delicious Library?

[chaley]

Originally Posted by discourse

Would it be possible to add a 'bookshelf' look similar to Delicious Library?

Don't know. In any event, doing so is certainly out of scope for the changes I am making.

The decision is Kovid's to make. I suggest you submit a 'ticket', asking for the change, which will start the approval/rejection process. That way it will either be officially rejected or not be forgotten.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Starson17

Here's why I disagree.

Seems like we might have irreconcilable differences here.

What do you think about the idea of adding a 'tweak' that controls whether 'no' and 'not-set' are the same thing? Tweaks are intended to be set once, controlling calibre's behavior from that point forward. The more technical amongst us could understand both how to set the tweak and the consequences of setting it, while those who aren't technical or prefer the two-value behavior would leave it alone.

To be precise: if the tweak is set to two-value, the interface will accept only checked and unchecked. Both No and not-set display as No. Editing the value and setting it to unchecked will change the value for the row to from not-set to No, but would have no effect on display. Searching for 'No' or 'false' will find both 'No' and not-set. Searching for 'true' will find only Yes.

If the tweak is set to tri-value: the interface will accept all three values, and they will display differently (No as no and not-set as blank). Searching for Yes (or the alias 'checked') will find only rows with Yes values. Searching for 'No' (or the alias 'unchecked') will find rows with No values. Searching for 'false' (or the aliases 'empty' and 'blank') will find rows with not-set values. Searching for 'true' will find both No and Yes.

Or something like that.

The default would be two-value.

Acceptable?

[guyanonymous]

1.
col:false -> returns columns with no entry at all
col:true -> returns columns with any type of entry (yes or no)
col:no -> returns columns with no only
col:yes ->returns columns with yes only

2. I'd suggest an option to allow both if possible. Essentially a "include hidden columns in search" option.


Thanks very much for taking this on - a lot of people will appreciate the added feature.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I could see that working if the tags column was treated as a special case -- its tags would be in the tag browser even if it was turned off.

I can do that. What I mean is that the tags category will remain even if the column is removed, but the other categories would disappear.

I'm big on user options. What about three states? Visible main/tag, visible tag only, and completely invisible?

First, I am not sure what you are suggesting.

Second: one difficulty to deal with is that there must be some way to set the options, and having this interface introduces its own complexity. It is sometimes easier for people fielding questions to limit the application's behavior. In addition, the extra options clutter the GUI, adding complexity.

I left out a piece of information that is pertinent to this discussion. The changes being made include the ability for users to create their own tag browser categories containing selected items. For example, one can create a 'genres' category containing selected tags, a 'favorite authors' category containing the obvious, etc. The limitation is that a user-defined category can contain only one type of information (only one of tags, authors, series, or publishers). These 'user-defined categories' will always be displayed, but their contents are filtered so that they show only values (tags, authors, etc) that can actually be selected (think restrictions). Does this change any of the responses? (Yes, my manual-writing ability is being challenged here. I hope I am reasonably clear.)