[FusionDev] [Compcomm] Suggestion for settings for everyone

[Erkin Bahceci]

On 6/24/07, Erkin Bahceci <erkinbah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/24/07, Guillaume Seguin <guillaume at segu.in> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/6/24, Erkin Bahceci <erkinbah at gmail.com>:
> > > On 6/24/07, Alyssa Hung < deciare at isisview.org> wrote:
> > > > That's true, but I want to substring search for individual option
> > names,
> > > > bindings by the keys/buttons/edges assigned to them, and the window
> > > > matching rules assigned to them. :D
> > > >
> > > > It would be so convenient to be able to enter something like
> > > > "type=unknown" into a search box and see a list of every
> > > > animation/winrule/place/opacity setting that has it in the criteria
> > > string.
> > > >
> > > > Or enter "<Super>" into a search box to see a list of all key
> > bindings
> > > > that use that key as a modifier (beryl-settings already did this).
> > > >
> > > > Or let's say I remember there's an option called "Snapoff maximized
> > > > windows", but don't remember which plugin it's in. It'd be helpful
> > to
> > > > see a list of all options from all plugins with the term "snapoff"
> > in
> > > > the option name or description.
> > > >
> > > > It'd be so convenient to be able to search for _anything_!
> > > >
> > >
> > > I absolutely agree. While I very much appreciate the effort put into
> > this
> > > compiz configuration system, it's still lacking this important
> > feature. This
> > > would be the number one selling point / killer feature of it, one that
> >
> > > distinguishes it from the previous configuration systems. I say it's a
> > > must-have (before there is an official release), because users
> > shouldn't
> > > need to memorize which plugin provides which option. Some of the
> > current
> > > plugin separations are not intuitive anyway (cube, rotate, and the
> > virtual
> > > screen size options are all in separate pages). Users should be able
> > to
> > > search among all options conveniently from a single place, just like
> > in KDE
> > > control center. The search results should be collected in the right
> > part and
> > > should be put into groups labeled with "general options" / plugin
> > names (a
> > > gui element like the one used for subgroup headers could be used for
> > this,
> > > with a larger font).
> > >
> > > Option search should also search within long descriptions. And it
> > should
> > > have an option to search within values as well (like in gconf) so
> > that, for
> > > example, keybinding options can be found easily. It could also search
> > in
> > > value descriptions (in int/int-list options). Use case: Joe User
> > searching
> > > for "magic lamp".
> > >
> > > If you want some extra sophistication, you could even use WordNet
> > synsets to
> > > search for synonyms as well, so that you provide results even when the
> > user
> > > doesn't know the exact word used in the option. There is even an
> > already
> > > available python frontend: PyWN, which comes with a wordnet
> > dictionary. Such
> > > a wordnet-search functionality would better be an optional package
> > though
> > > (PyWN is 9.6 MB). Anyhow.
> > >
> >
> > There's also this very simple method for spelling suggestions :
> > http://norvig.com/spell-correct.html (not 100% what you were thinking
> > about, but useful anyway)
>
>
>
> Yeah that could be useful. It still needs a word list though. It could use
> the word list I described below:
>
>
> > Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > >  Cheers,
> > > Erkin
>
>
>
> Another idea:
>
> Suggestion list in the search box as the user types (starting at 2
> letters). The suggestions would be given from a list of collected words
> consisting of option names, option short/long descriptions, option values,
> and int/int-list option value descriptions. The list can be collected either
> by a compiz plugin or by the settings manager itself. If it is done in a
> plugin, it could be written to a file for the settings manager to read, or
> the plugin can provide the suggestion functionality to the settings manager
> through dbus. And suggesting itself should be a snap if the list is sorted
> after collecting.
>
>
If the results are shown as the user types (i.e. in an incremental way), a
suggestion list won't be necessary of course. Still, using a word list like
I mentioned above would speed up the search itself, if each item in the list
has pointers to matching options (option "paths").

- Erkin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.compiz-fusion.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20070624/50bb434b/attachment.html