Quote:
Originally Posted by chaley
My opinion:
If all selections are in the group, show a dialog saying that the entire group will be added, not just the selected books.
If some selections are in a different group, show a dialog saying that the entire group will be added and that the selections outside the group will be ignored.
If only one book is selected, and if that book is in the group, then show a dialog saying that the entire group will be added.
Use three different ignore_me checkbox names.
|
And if no selected rows are in the current group, we have a fourth dialog?
I'm sitting here looking into this now and just not liking it much
My natural instinct (admittedly as I am testing rather than "using") is to ignore where the green highlighting is and grab a bunch of rows on screen that grab my attention.
I'm thinking all the warning dialogs in the world are not going to get my brain around the fact that I selected rows 3,4,5 but rows 1 & 2 as the "current group" are what exemptions will get added for. The dialog will tell me, but after the first time the brain will just go "yeah yeah" and ignore it in future. I think the disconnect between row selections and actual affected rows is too great.
So I propose one of two things: Either...
(1) When you choose the menu option to Mark group as exempt, it
moves the selection to the current group row(s) that are affected. Then the dialog appears. So you get a visual reminder (until you stop the dialog nagging of course). Or...
(2) I go back to the idea of row selection based exemptions.
My reasoning for not allowing the user to do free-form selection was to do with if the user did not select all the rows within a group, you can get loads of confusion about partitioning without re-running searches etc. And quite possibly the user isn't actually understanding what they are doing, and you would either end up with weird cross group exemptions that make no sense or nothing "happening" because behind the scenes we rationalise them out.
So if...
Group 1 has books (10,11,12)
Group 2 has books (13,14)
What does it mean if the user selects books 12 & 13? Do we think they mean that they are trying to say that 12 & 13 are not duplicates of each other? As clearly it makes no sense to create a duplicate exemption for them since they were not put in the same group.
Alternatively, did they mean that 12 is not a duplicate of anything in its group and neither is 13 in its group? So they want exemptions created of (10,12), (11,12) and (13,14) resulting in only (10,11) being left?
I think we have to give the user the benefit of the doubt in that they mean "not duplicates of each other". So the selection may contain a mixture of valid pairs plus invalid "single row from a group" selections.
That leaves the final issue of this second option being updating the UI. Unless we re-run the search, then for various combinations nothing will actually change on screen. So perhaps we treat it like removing an exemption from the "show all" screen that it does exactly that of re-running the search after each time you mark a selection as exempt. So any partitioning gets applied etc.
Thoughts?