© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
35a32c5
(Get the code!)
(In reply to Charles from comment #129)
> (In reply to Blake Winton (:bwinton - Thunderbird UX) from comment #128)
> > So, this is _kinda_ like what I was thinking of, but I don't think it's
> > close enough to get a ui-r+.
> >
> > The main thing I dislike is that it feels _way_ too cluttered.
> As compared to the Quickfilter Toolbar?
> Remember, this is designed to *replace* the entire QF toolbar.
No, as compared with something I would want to add to Thunderbird. ;)
> It also auto-expands/
> where it is placed.
I don't know how much of a feature that is. I think I would be confused if things moved around too much when I resized the window. (Perhaps that's not how it works. Perhaps it's not actually that confusing.)
> > Four icons in the search box is three and a half too many.
> I agree to an extent, and would like to see this configurable. Personally,
> I'd like only the Pin icon and a Read/Unread toggle (those are the only ones
> I use a lot).
I don't know of many search fields that have more than one active thing in them. (Even Firefox's has only one _active_ thing, and the two icons it contains are on opposite sides, and thus less cluttered feeling.) For this reason, I don't think letting people put _more_ icons into the text area is the right thing to do.
> > Manually having to switch between filter and global search forces me to make
> > a decision before I feel I should.
> Not sure what you mean here, but I don't use the Global Search (have GLODA
> completely disabled)...
Hmm. So when I just tried it, I typed a string, then switched from filter to gloda, and the string disappeared. I just tried the reverse now, and it seemed to work okay. Perhaps it was just a bug I hit…
> > The extra bar seems to pop up at odd times.
> Haven't noticed this... and I use it heavily and have a lot of other
> extensions - maybe a conflict with one you have?
I only have lightning installed.
> > I don't feel like I have any control over it.
> I have zero problems with it, and like I said, use it heavily. Can you
> elaborate a little?
I suspect the fact that you use it heavily is the difference here.
For me, as a first-time user of the add-on, it feels cluttered and confusing.
(I also suspect that you have a higher tolerance for complexity than I do… :)
> > http://
> > some extra icons beside the global search.
> > What are they for? Is that just a bug?
> I only see the clear button, the button to switch back to Filter mode, and
> the Prefs button - what other buttons are you talking about?
The ones to the left of the words "Messages mentioning: Mike".
> > I realize that there is a conflict here between ux-minimalism and
> > ux-discovery, but I think we need to go further towards the minimalism side
> > of things than this current add-on does.
> It is already vastly more minimalistic than the QF toolbar, so what are you
> contrasting it to?
> I'm not trying to be argumentative, I honestly don't see the problems youare
> talking about...
So, I've got a picture of all the bars up at
http://
You'll notice that the add-on has four buttons in the text box, as opposed to one icon for each of the QFB and GlodaBar.
For the QFB and GlodaBar, nothing pops up until I type something, whereas the add-on shows an extra popup (with a button to switch the popup from horizontal to vertical? Why is that even there?) as soon as I enter the field.
For the add-on's popup, there's no indication of what the various icons are, or which keys I would use to activate them.
For the add-on, to clear the options, Esc+Esc is a _horrible_ key combination. (I also have no idea what "Clear Options" actually does…)
Why is there an icon to show or hide the extra popup?
Once I type something, and the bar is popped up, how do I navigate to it with the keyboard?
I agree there is more stuff displayed at the start in the QFB, but it's better organized, and so easier to understand, and I don't think the add-on actually does any less so it's not actually more minimal.
I think we can have something that offers both filtering and global search without making people specify which one they want, by extending the behaviour of the QFB when you type in something like "fjdsfjslfnsdkfn" to also cover cases where there are matches, and that seems like a better way to go to me…
Thanks,
Blake.