Live.com's search
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
David Kentley wrote:
It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
I like the way it works with my wheel on my mouse. Very natural. I never even had to touch the scrollbar. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
You use the mouse and scroll down, and watch the counter. You are "paging" via an ajax call. So when you get to the bottom, the next "page" is loaded for you and you continue to scroll down vice clicking a link to the next page. You can scroll up without having to reload the previous page since the data is still there. I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI. Yes it's different from the standard paging of search engines displaying page 1 of 10 billion results that you see 20 or so records at a time. Here as you go through the records you don't lose anything - just scroll up the pages don't need to be reloaded. Once people get over the shift of what's being done I think many like this way better (of course that assumes the results are good!;)). That there's no paging is a winner in my book. MS thinking out of the box and innovating. I just wish they had an open and open in new window option like most of the links here at CP - then it would be gold. Al
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
Another thing that's terrible about it is that its one of those sites that you can't escape from by using the "Back" button. I hate those kinds of sites.
-
Another thing that's terrible about it is that its one of those sites that you can't escape from by using the "Back" button. I hate those kinds of sites.
What's up with that? Why do sites do that? It makes me feel like I've been captured by the Death Star's tractor beam and can't get away! Or worse, like I've fallen into the clutches of a greasy used-car salemsan. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
:wtf: I can't believe how bad the UI is! Why on earth do ppl think using Ajax for arb things on the web (like scrolling) is a good thing. It isn't. Cheers, Simon > blog:: brokenkeyboards > what I think of the OPTIONAL keyword in VB.NET? :: here > CV :: PDF > skype :: SimonMStewart
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
and I think it's silly to use the ^ symbol to expand an item from the top down and a v symbol to collapse it. :| Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
You use the mouse and scroll down, and watch the counter. You are "paging" via an ajax call. So when you get to the bottom, the next "page" is loaded for you and you continue to scroll down vice clicking a link to the next page. You can scroll up without having to reload the previous page since the data is still there. I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI. Yes it's different from the standard paging of search engines displaying page 1 of 10 billion results that you see 20 or so records at a time. Here as you go through the records you don't lose anything - just scroll up the pages don't need to be reloaded. Once people get over the shift of what's being done I think many like this way better (of course that assumes the results are good!;)). That there's no paging is a winner in my book. MS thinking out of the box and innovating. I just wish they had an open and open in new window option like most of the links here at CP - then it would be gold. Al
You can do the Ajax page-set loading with a normal, standard, usable scrollbar. Live.com has no excuse. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
and I think it's silly to use the ^ symbol to expand an item from the top down and a v symbol to collapse it. :| Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
Yeah. It's like those awful clickety things. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
You use the mouse and scroll down, and watch the counter. You are "paging" via an ajax call. So when you get to the bottom, the next "page" is loaded for you and you continue to scroll down vice clicking a link to the next page. You can scroll up without having to reload the previous page since the data is still there. I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI. Yes it's different from the standard paging of search engines displaying page 1 of 10 billion results that you see 20 or so records at a time. Here as you go through the records you don't lose anything - just scroll up the pages don't need to be reloaded. Once people get over the shift of what's being done I think many like this way better (of course that assumes the results are good!;)). That there's no paging is a winner in my book. MS thinking out of the box and innovating. I just wish they had an open and open in new window option like most of the links here at CP - then it would be gold. Al
Al Ortega wrote:
I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI.
I disagree. A UI should not require the user to understand the workings or the limitations of the underlying technology to "buy in" to how it's used. I also find it very annoying to have to watch a counter, and of course, if I shove the scrollbar up to the top, I want to see the top, instantly, I don't want to watch the window do its cutesy scrolling. What appears to be a scrollbar acts more like a shuttle, and certainly a shuttle has its uses. But how it's being used here ends up being cool for scanning forward and annoying as heck for going back. It's a useful concept for going forward because I'm scanning in a forward direction to reveal new information. But for going backwards, I don't want the slow scrolling effect because I've already scanned the information and I want to go back to a specific point. I guess the end result though is very workable for the average user, but not the "power user". Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
What's up with that? Why do sites do that? It makes me feel like I've been captured by the Death Star's tractor beam and can't get away! Or worse, like I've fallen into the clutches of a greasy used-car salemsan. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
What's up with that? Why do sites do that?
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter".
-
Yeah. It's like those awful clickety things. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Yeah. It's like those awful clickety things.
It all started because of you. Remeber the Paul friendly URLs everyone gave out.
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
until you put a normal scrollbar It's a shuttle, and as a shuttle, it works very well. The problem is, you probably want to shuttle forward because it works well with scanning links, but you want to scroll backwards to what you've already scanned. Complicated. ;) Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Yeah. It's like those awful clickety things.
It all started because of you. Remeber the Paul friendly URLs everyone gave out.
hah. Those were clicketies with my name in them. I was up for a W3C recommendation. Took me years of therapy to come to grips with it. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
until you put a normal scrollbar It's a shuttle, and as a shuttle, it works very well. The problem is, you probably want to shuttle forward because it works well with scanning links, but you want to scroll backwards to what you've already scanned. Complicated. ;) Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Know of any apps that successfully use a shuttle? I am told NASA tried but even they can't get them to fly right. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Al Ortega wrote:
I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI.
I disagree. A UI should not require the user to understand the workings or the limitations of the underlying technology to "buy in" to how it's used. I also find it very annoying to have to watch a counter, and of course, if I shove the scrollbar up to the top, I want to see the top, instantly, I don't want to watch the window do its cutesy scrolling. What appears to be a scrollbar acts more like a shuttle, and certainly a shuttle has its uses. But how it's being used here ends up being cool for scanning forward and annoying as heck for going back. It's a useful concept for going forward because I'm scanning in a forward direction to reveal new information. But for going backwards, I don't want the slow scrolling effect because I've already scanned the information and I want to go back to a specific point. I guess the end result though is very workable for the average user, but not the "power user". Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
A UI should not require the user to understand the workings or the limitations of the underlying technology to "buy in" to how it's used.
No knowledge is required to scroll down to the next set of results. Up and down arrows aren't intuitive?
Marc Clifton wrote:
I also find it very annoying to have to watch a counter
I only pointed out what the counter was doing is no different than normal paging and I prefer this interface vice the current paging methods and find it very intuitive. I like being able to go back to the previous pages results with NO wait time - this is a winner in my book. Once a page is loaded it stays there so I'm not really paging as much as adding the next page to my current list. I like that, others may not.
Marc Clifton wrote:
I guess the end result though is very workable for the average user, but not the "power user".
I disagree, the average user is trained well by Google, Yahoo etc to click on Next/Previous page, it is the power user that will see the functionality provided here. As I use it more I think the results could be better and I'll continue to use Yahoo/Google as my primary search engines until that changes. But it won't be because MS decided to try to do something a little different.:cool: I can understand that not everyone is going to be a fan (can't please everyone) but as for me I like it. Al
-
until you put a normal scrollbar It's a shuttle, and as a shuttle, it works very well. The problem is, you probably want to shuttle forward because it works well with scanning links, but you want to scroll backwards to what you've already scanned. Complicated. ;) Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's a shuttle, and as a shuttle, it works very well.
Oh, so that's called a shuttle. I can't think of any app (or website) off the top of my head that uses it. Is there a situation where a shuttle is just right for the job? They completely avoided the universal "scrollbar" paradigm so that I don't have to click a "next" link at the bottom of each page of links. Was it worth it?
-
You use the mouse and scroll down, and watch the counter. You are "paging" via an ajax call. So when you get to the bottom, the next "page" is loaded for you and you continue to scroll down vice clicking a link to the next page. You can scroll up without having to reload the previous page since the data is still there. I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI. Yes it's different from the standard paging of search engines displaying page 1 of 10 billion results that you see 20 or so records at a time. Here as you go through the records you don't lose anything - just scroll up the pages don't need to be reloaded. Once people get over the shift of what's being done I think many like this way better (of course that assumes the results are good!;)). That there's no paging is a winner in my book. MS thinking out of the box and innovating. I just wish they had an open and open in new window option like most of the links here at CP - then it would be gold. Al
Al Ortega wrote:
I think when used/understood this is a very slick and elegant UI. Yes it's different from the standard paging of search engines displaying page 1 of 10 billion results that you see 20 or so records at a time. Here as you go through the records you don't lose anything - just scroll up the pages don't need to be reloaded.
Wow! Where do I sign up?! My Programming Library C#, C# Run
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's a shuttle, and as a shuttle, it works very well.
Oh, so that's called a shuttle. I can't think of any app (or website) off the top of my head that uses it. Is there a situation where a shuttle is just right for the job? They completely avoided the universal "scrollbar" paradigm so that I don't have to click a "next" link at the bottom of each page of links. Was it worth it?
David Kentley wrote:
Is there a situation where a shuttle is just right for the job?
When you have a choice between loads of pages (as in Google) or a scroll bar handle that is too small to click on. I think it works quite well there, its just not what you expect and doesn't look right but thats only because your used to Google.
Team Leader - Team Code Project[^] :cool:
-
I just left the following feedback for live.com's search feature: I will not use live.com for searching until you put a normal scrollbar on the results page or, better yet, just use my browser's scrollbar. There are two reasons google.com is so popular: 1. They have a simple, fast, no frills yet elegant UI. 2. They provide great search results. I have not yet even bothered to check if #2 is true for you guys, because you have utterly failed with #1. The most glaring example of this failure is your silly scrollbar mechanism which is counterintuitive to every scrollbar I have ever used on Windows. I hope this helps. It amazes me how otherwise intelligent companies continue to misunderstand the web.
hmmm... firefox jumped up to about 80MB memory using their search :omg: I like the fact that you can just "scroll" down and down no nead to page - however I can't stand the "smooth scrolling" effect they have - it almost makes me feel sick trying to read it while moving. They should allow you turn this off just like in IE you can turn off smooth scrolling in the options.
"... This man is obviously a psychotic." "We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in." (Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)
~ ScrollingGrid (cross-browser freeze-header control)
