On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 04:59:00PM +0900, s.ross wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> >Okay, so I figured out it doesn't work without accepting a cookie (a
> >misfeature, in my opinion).  There's also the problem that there's  
> >no way
> >to link directly to a given search, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Yeah, there's really no reason it needs to set a cookie right now.  
> But... I'm thinking there may be a need in the future for session  
> storage and that will require cookies.

Then refusing cookies should break session storage, but not basic search
functionality.


> 
> Regarding linking to a given search, I'm pretty sure I don't  
> understand... do you mean like a permalink to a given result set?

Yes.


> 
> >Is there some reason that a blank Find field shows 25 results?
> 
> Programmer decision :) I decided to make a blank field equal to * and  
> only show 25 results at a time. Again, I had to take a stab at it, and  
> that was my initial take.

You might want to indicate what's going on.  I think that's a pretty neat
idea for how to handle it, but I might suggest something like making the
selected results (pseudo-)random and starting them off with a heading
that says "25 Random Gems:".


> 
> >I like having an online gem search tool with a clean interface like  
> >this.
> 
> 
> Thanks. I was totally blown away by what I learned by spielunking the  
> gems just a little with this search. I hope it's as much fun for  
> others as it is for me.
> 
> Please let me know if you have other thoughts on this.

Something I didn't say explicitly: I'm sure you'll be adding some more to
the interface if you keep working on this.  Please don't clutter things
up too much, though.  As I said, I like the clean interface, and making
it look like the search results at RubyForge (for instance) would be a
Bad Thing.  Take your cues from the main page of Google, and not Yahoo!,
or from reddit, and not Digg.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
awj @reddit: "The terms never and always are never always true."