Dropdown selection logic inconsistent

[Paolo F Cantoni]

With many selection (combo) boxes in EA, adding characters to identify the selection, will "walk" the list, with the current (matching) value at the top.

This is common combo box behaviour.

However, if the applicable value is toward the bottom of the (large - say the stereotype) list, this is NOT the behaviour, there's no indication of the current matching value.  The user still has to scan the list to see if there is a matching value.

This is user unfriendly.

Is this behaviour improvable?

There are many other patterns.  One (that appeals to me) is to restrict the dropdown to only those values matching the combo entry so far.

Thoughts?

Paolo

[SF_lt]

agree, this should be corrected - and pretty easily. Change some dropdown settings.

register^tm

I suppose, EA is built using Raize components or something very similar

and maybe there should be BUG in the subject  

[«Midnight»]

Perhaps we need to create a LIMITATION label. What say?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Perhaps we need to create a LIMITATION label. What say?

Too much real estate used up..  

Besides, it's really a defect, just a different type...

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Then perhaps DEFECT...

Just something that lets us use BUG to describe something that's broken, where the application fails, or does something that is just plain wrong. DEFECT would refer to something that is not functioning properly (versus not at all), is difficult or wierd (given the rest of the product) to use, or stops short of fully implementing a feature or specification item.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Then perhaps DEFECT...

Just something that lets us use BUG to describe something that's broken, where the application fails, or does something that is just plain wrong. DEFECT would refer to something that is not functioning properly (versus not at all), is difficult or weird (given the rest of the product) to use, or stops short of fully implementing a feature or specification item.

In my ontology, BUG is "the manifestation of a DEFECT".

I chose this definition, because all we as users can see is the manifestation (that is behaviour).  Thus we can describe it as a bug.  Formally: the manifestation of an anomalous behaviour.

Once analysis has taken place (either by Sparx or others), the the underling defect can be identified.  Formally:  the reason for the anomalous behaviour.

I know it can look like a subtle distinction, but try it.

Paolo

[soapbox]I came up with the definition because I got sick of developers describing defects as bugs (thus the possible interaction of karmic forces - as was the original "bug" - I think, discovered by Commander Grace Hopper in the mid 1940's)

We design IN defects!  Until we internalise that, we can't build systems and applications that really work... [/soapbox]

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Speaking of common combobox behaviour.  There is often functionality to allow auto completion of a partial input.

Is there such functionality for EA combo boxes?  Often there is an associated key mapping (like [Ctrl+Space]).

Paolo

[KP]

With many selection (combo) boxes in EA, adding characters to identify the selection, will "walk" the list, with the current (matching) value at the top.

This is common combo box behaviour.

However, if the applicable value is toward the bottom of the (large - say the stereotype) list, this is NOT the behaviour, there's no indication of the current matching value.  The user still has to scan the list to see if there is a matching value.

This is user unfriendly.

Is this behaviour improvable?

Try hitting the down arrow after you've typed two or thee characters. It should load the first matching list item into the text box.

[«Midnight»]

Thanks Neil,

The question remains: what happens when you hit down arrow after the (first or other) matching entry is current? Does this navigate to the next matching entry (or the entry after all those that match if you are on the final one), or does it go to the next entry in the (unordered) list?

David