Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley
Given that the operation adds exemptions for all the books in a group, selections really don't have any meaning. So, unless you are intending to allow subsets of the group (are you?), then I think it is sufficient to pop up a question box to tell the user that exemptions will be added for all the books in the group and the selections will be ignored -- OK? If the user is confused, then I hope s/he pushes cancel, re-locates the group, selects nothing, and does it again. Of course, you must tolerate the first book of a group being selected, or (probably better) any one book in the group.
|
Definitely not thinking subgroups. All I was thinking is that the selection could happen to be be "anything" when they choose "Mark group as exempt". In a perfect world they just have one or more rows selected, and they all sit within the current group that will have exemptions made from it. No ambiguity. However what if their selection also happened to overlap into another group? Do I just check the first row in the selection lies within the current group, do I check all selected rows must lie in the group or just that one of them does? That was the sort of question I avoided answering
Also for instance a user might move the selection off the current group (when showing all groups) just so they can more clearly see all its members (since we have the issue of the selection colour overwriting the green highlighting). So are they getting an additional dialog box to tell them they are not on the group to be marked exempt, or are we saying that we just change the message on the existing dialog (that you want me to give the user a don't show me this again option on so then they wouldn't see) ...
Quote:
|
Putting aside the above concern, I am not convinced that sliders are the right interface. They imply a level of 'analog' behavior that isn't there, and also don't support tool tips and the like well.
|
I'm not sure I agree on that as I think "analog" with tickmarks and distinct labelled positions in combination with the actual values I proposed do actually represent a scale of directness of matching. However like I said the Qt sliders are pretty crap, and trying to line up centered labels in a grid next to them etc won't work very well.
Quote:
|
I would lean toward radio buttons, with two groups. Group 1 would have ISBN, then the title choices, with the first choice being ignore. Group 2 would have the author choices with the first choice being 'ignore', which would line up horizontally with the title group's ignore (nothing beside the ISBN choice). Choosing ISBN would force group 2 to ignore and disable it. Choosing any title option would enable group 2. Choosing ignore for both options can be an error, or can make one big group.
|
I think I need a picture sorry
I'm not intending to change it at this point, your suggestion of getting wider feedback is valid. It is just that I wanted to add a fuzzier author & title algorithms to make this plugin more useful. However adding just a single "fuzzy title, fuzzy author" option might bring back way too many false positives. Maybe "similar title, fuzzy author" and "fuzzy title, similar author" would be the most useful variants of that.