 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/7/2015 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:02:29 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> Honestly, trying to guess when the user meant wildcard and then they
>> actually meant star is *highly* non-trivial.
>
> * = wildcard
>
> \* = literal *
>
See! Training!
Users need training. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2015 07:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 8/7/2015 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:02:29 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly, trying to guess when the user meant wildcard and then they
>>> actually meant star is *highly* non-trivial.
>>
>> * = wildcard
>>
>> \* = literal *
Actually our system uses quote marks to disambiguate.
> See! Training!
> Users need training. :-P
Now try searching for a quote mark...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/7/2015 7:42 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Now try searching for a quote mark...
" -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
' -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe
That is what I would expect.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:39:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 8/7/2015 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:02:29 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly, trying to guess when the user meant wildcard and then they
>>> actually meant star is *highly* non-trivial.
>>
>> * = wildcard
>>
>> \* = literal *
>>
>>
> See! Training!
> Users need training. :-P
I never said they don't need training. What I said was that if your
software business' bottom line depends on training revenue as part of
that bottom line, you're doing software wrong - and I stand by that
statement. :)
But in this particular instance, a search interface that provided
semantics for finding things based on arbitrary criteria that dealt with
a natural language interface would probably be easier for the users.
Much more difficult to implement, and Google's search capabilities (as
someone in this thread, I think, already pointed out) make anyone else's
search look like a child's attempt.
But actually, the Google search interface itself is an example of how to
do user interaction around search right. It doesn't provide as much
flexibility as other search engines, but it works for the vast majority
of what it's used for, and is simple, elegant, and requires no special
training to understand how to use.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 19:42:54 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 07/08/2015 07:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 8/7/2015 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:02:29 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Honestly, trying to guess when the user meant wildcard and then they
>>>> actually meant star is *highly* non-trivial.
>>>
>>> * = wildcard
>>>
>>> \* = literal *
>
> Actually our system uses quote marks to disambiguate.
Well, there's your problem.
>> See! Training!
>> Users need training. :-P
>
> Now try searching for a quote mark...
\"
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/8/2015 12:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> See! Training!
>> >Users need training.:-P
> I never said they don't need training. What I said was that if your
> software business' bottom line depends on training revenue as part of
> that bottom line, you're doing software wrong - and I stand by that
> statement.:)
>
Get me a landing net. I have a bite. :-)
> But in this particular instance, a search interface that provided
> semantics for finding things based on arbitrary criteria that dealt with
> a natural language interface would probably be easier for the users.
> Much more difficult to implement, and Google's search capabilities (as
> someone in this thread, I think, already pointed out) make anyone else's
> search look like a child's attempt.
>
> But actually, the Google search interface itself is an example of how to
> do user interaction around search right. It doesn't provide as much
> flexibility as other search engines, but it works for the vast majority
> of what it's used for, and is simple, elegant, and requires no special
> training to understand how to use.
Yes and it has the best spell checker I've come across.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:10:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 8/8/2015 12:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> See! Training!
>>> >Users need training.:-P
>> I never said they don't need training. What I said was that if your
>> software business' bottom line depends on training revenue as part of
>> that bottom line, you're doing software wrong - and I stand by that
>> statement.:)
>>
>>
> Get me a landing net. I have a bite. :-)
:P
>> But in this particular instance, a search interface that provided
>> semantics for finding things based on arbitrary criteria that dealt
>> with a natural language interface would probably be easier for the
>> users. Much more difficult to implement, and Google's search
>> capabilities (as someone in this thread, I think, already pointed out)
>> make anyone else's search look like a child's attempt.
>>
>> But actually, the Google search interface itself is an example of how
>> to do user interaction around search right. It doesn't provide as much
>> flexibility as other search engines, but it works for the vast majority
>> of what it's used for, and is simple, elegant, and requires no special
>> training to understand how to use.
>
> Yes and it has the best spell checker I've come across.
Agreed. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
