New answers tagged

0

I would recommend implementing an autofilter search box with match-highlighting and checkboxes for directory/database filters: You could have the filter automatically update the list of contacts displayed in case someone typed a name and forgot to select a directory or selected the wrong directory. It will prevent them from having to redo the name entry ...


-1

As you deal with regular user, try to combine both contacts and full directory in one tab, and change the title of the forms with some familiar one such : ---------------------------------------------- Message __________ Recent | More | --------------- -------------------- ________________ ...


-1

With 5000+ contacts you'll want additional filtering control. Depending on culture and country, lots of people can have First and Last names that are similar. How about: [First name] [Last name] [Directory]


-1

personally I would go for Option 2 - initially limiting the number of results per area (to for e.g. 5) but adding a link next to the area (or at the bottom) that says something like "... see more" which would then limit the result to the specified area.


1

A Single search box, intelligent enough powered by programming obviously, which will provide results based on search query. In first approach Design One we are expecting users have carefully selected the option among Town / Street / Property Design Two It seems a 'Sequential' flow. Ohh..i have to enter Town first then Street then Property?..ok..But ...


1

Both ways are frustrating as the user must pay careful attention either to the specific search box or the selected radio button. Search box should be single and simple. The fact that the searches are mutually exclusive does not necessarily means the user should be limited to search a single field at a time. Searching 'London' for example, he may want to ...


3

I would prefer the first design in a different way. As the user should search for one particular field at a time it's better to have a drop-down in front of the search field, the user knows it is mandatory to choose one from the drop-down and they can also see the options they opt to search from the drop-down menu. It also consumes less space for the search ...


4

If you're torn between these two, I'd go with convention: your first design uses radio buttons to communicate that the values are mutually exclusive. The UI elements in the first design clearly show the user that they can only choose one of them. I would imagine with your second design, a user would use it the first time and think "oh, these other fields ...


-3

The input fields should be cleared out. It is an input field not a page title. For good UI the functional parts should serve a singular purpose. Not clearing the input is simply lazy and annoying done more out of a tradition of laziness than actual logic. Think of a better way to handle the case of re-initiating the search. Perhaps a clickable search ...


2

Search box are essentiall just input fields that serve a special purpose. Input fields usually keep their input, unless the user deletes it himself. Making an input simply disappear without an explicit "delete" option would be bad, since it takes control from the user and it contradicts with standard input field behaviour. But you don't even need a delete ...


4

You can also provide a separate clear search or reset sort of a feature in your search bar's input box. By which you are not taking the control from the users and also you give them an option to perform the task.


57

If you clear the box, you're taking away control from the user. While you may seem like you're doing them a favor, you're robbing them of context for what they just typed in. When you type things into a command prompt, the previous command you typed is still there. Although you state that it's a long ID that the user probably just pasted in have you ...


87

I have a personal hatred towards websites which clear content from the Search bar after I hit Search. Here's why: It is completely unnecessary to clear the content out. There are multiple chances that the user might want to add something to that query. For example, if I search for American Psycho and I find that it's a movie with amazing ratings and I ...


0

I'm not sure if it's necessary for your application, but Google give this notification:


1

If your user turns off instant search or you do not offer it, the user will expect the search results to not change until they submit the search form again. I would therefore prefer not to change the style or content of the search results page. Also: The user who edited the search string will (likely) be aware of the discrepancy with the search results ...


1

A simple way would be to alter the framing of the input box, i.e. thick lines for "changed" text, thin lines for "old" text after searching. Another idea: Add "Search results for ..." between the input box and the results. That makes it clear even for printed and saved pages.


2

How about two radio buttons with the default being "current store"? [o] Search current store (188) [ ] Search a different store [___] And when searching the current store yields no results, you could flip the radio button to the second option and display a message: No results found in current store. Would you like to try a different store? [ ] ...


1

One design standard to keep in mind is that applications should communicate with the user in the language that the user understands, not in the language used directly by CRUD operations. In this example, store ID 188 means nothing to a user, but the system knows exactly what that means. I would suggest a prompt similar to what @PixelSnader explained, except ...


1

You can sidestep the issue in this case by leaving the number blank, and adding text to the right or under it saying 'if left blank we will search store 188'.



Top 50 recent answers are included