On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 04:59:00PM +0900, s.ross wrote:
On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Chad P. 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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.