Re: [Bibdesk-users] clearing search field

[Adam R. M. <ama...@ma...>]

On Nov 25, 2005, at 13:26, Matthias Damm wrote:

>
> Am 25.11.2005 um 18:30 schrieb Adam R. Maxwell:
>
>>> I don't think changing groups should clear the search field, but  
>>> maybe double-clicking on a new group could clear the search field  
>>> so there's a quick way to do what I wanted, which was to start  
>>> anew looking at that group.
>
> That sounds like a nice idea.

I should mention that this is not possible now, since (smart) group  
names are editable, and I think it would be quite unintuitive in any  
case.

>> Since iTunes clears search fields, however, that's the route we  
>> took.  On the one hand, then, we have unintuitive behavior.  On  
>> the other, we have inconvenient behavior (but consistent with  
>> Apple's design).  Which one to choose?
>
> Is this mentioned in Apple's interface style guide, or is it "just  
> done so" in iTunes (and Mail)?
> If the latter is true, I don't think it is a too strong argument.

Well...precedent in Apple's applications is all we have to go on for  
many of our design issues, in order to look current and avoid  
fragmenting the user interface experience further.

> And even if it is mentioned in the style guide, it stays  
> inconvenient and unintuitive ...

It can be inconvenient.  I think that whether it's unintuitive or not  
depends on your frame of reference, just as in the usual OS 9 vs. OS  
X interface flame wars.  If half of your applications clear the  
search field all the time and half leave it untouched, you end up  
with a Windoze/Java/X11-style mess where each application is  
different, and your intuition might only lead you to expect random  
behavior :).  Note that I'm not arguing in favor of Apple's design  
choice in this case, but in favor of a consistent user experience.

Adam