[kde-guidelines] HIG for search needed (?)

[Philipp Stefan]

Hmm, I send this mail a few days ago, but it doesn't seem to have 
arrived. My apologies for the late reply.
On 01.04.2014 21:22, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> Oh sure, absolutely. I don't know what Philipp had in mind, but I was always
> thinking about "search in the current folder only" when I talked about a
> search that was the same as filtering for the user. That's currently not
> available in Dolphin's Search (presumably because it would be redundant with
> the filter function), but it could be.
Yes you are correct. I should have made this clearer. Right now Dolphin 
has a "From here (FOLDER)" and a "Everywhere" option when calling the 
search function. My idea was to add a "Only here (FOLDER)" option, which 
would be toggled when calling the "filter" function.
>> Separately, perhaps it might be worth distinguishing this pattern from a
>> word/item-highlight search where the content isn't altered but the found
>> items are simply highlighted and you can walk through each search "hit".
> Absolutely. Usually you'll find a search which returns a list of items as a
> result in applications which allow you to browse through something.
> Word highlight is usually found in applications where you either read or write
> text. And yes, they need different UIs
> The third thing is a search for items which can also highlight the search term
> within the results (Kate's "Search and Replace" comes to mind), which should
> also be considered.
I see that this gets more and more complicated (at least from my point 
of view). I think we shouldn't concern us too much with fringe cases and 
only outline some general guidelines. If we have common behaviour like, 
where the search field appears, what information it displays and how to 
deal with the search results. I think this should be enough. I trust the 
developers that they don't suddenly violate the guidelines horribly only 
because they need two more button to realise a highlighting filter like 
Andrew talked about. IMHO a bit more subsidiarity will both make the HIG 
lighter and more comprehensible.
>> P.S. I do think we should consider my sidebar search suggestion as a
>> separate, maybe experimental, pattern to revisit at a later date after
>> we've sorted out this basic search pattern.
> A few days ago I head meant to write an email to this list (or maybe I have
> but can't find it anymore?) suggesting that we should split our ideas into
> both a search HIG and a pattern.
> The search HIG would contain everything that we want to standardize, whereas
> the pattern would be more like an idea for how we think a good search feature
> could be implemented. So in my terms, your suggestion would be "work on the
> HIG first, then on the pattern later".
>
This sounds like a good idea. Please excuse this one stupid question 
though: What's the difference between a "search pattern" and the "search 
HIG"?

Cheers,

Phil