Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Link to Managing Saved Searches Difficult to Find/Use #2847

Closed
BrokenEagle opened this issue Jan 17, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Link to Managing Saved Searches Difficult to Find/Use #2847

BrokenEagle opened this issue Jan 17, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@BrokenEagle
Copy link
Collaborator

From the saved searches thread.

Basically, the link is difficult to find and/or use, as it is currently a multi-step process. I proposed reverting the link and placing a » next to it that would instead link to search:all, which seemed to be acceptable. It would look like the following:

Saved searches »

@r888888888
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't like that because searching is the common use case and it's being given the smallest visual footprint. Maybe invert the behavior so that the arrow goes to the manage page. That's a fairly novel UI quirk that isn't used anywhere else on the site though so it's not exactly intuitive.

I will play around with the design to find some sort of compromise. Maybe reprising the styling of subscriptions is the right idea.

@BrokenEagle
Copy link
Collaborator Author

BrokenEagle commented Jan 18, 2017

Yeah... the primary reason I suggested the above format is because it does mirror how some of the data items in the Information section on the Posts page are displayed, particularly the Uploader and Source data items.

Uploader: BrokenEagle98 »
...
Source: pixiv.net/member_... »

Still, I think any kind of link to manage Saved Searches that doesn't require a tag search first with the search metatag would suffice for most users.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants