Open bnjbvr opened 10 years ago
You are definitely right that there is a use case here that is not cover in any way.
I see two ways of doing it:
While the second is more generic and matches my vision of having a search form displayed as an interactive tree, the first one is clearly the direct response of the use case.
What do you think?
Although I really like the idea of inverting selection with not (#b, #c) and such, I feel like the UX would be really hard to get right: if you have 20 tasks with 20 different tags, you can (in the worst case) have to exclude 19 of them to get the only one which has one tag. It also seems rather difficult to have the right action to exclude tasks with a given tag (without using the search text field): would one have to click twice on the tag (first time, it includes it; second time, it excludes it; third time, it gets back to the initial state)? or click right?
The search field is also a UI solution to this problem: #a !#b !#c, but again, you may have to exclude a lot of tags before getting the one you were looking for.
You are right. I still want to have the search form as the mirror of the tree, but my solution doesn't fit the use case. I guess a "magic tag" that would be "strict current selection" like you want is definitely possible. I will try something and ping you to show you the result.
Let's say I click on a tag that references 7 tags (on the left list). 5 of them have other tags, but 2 of them don't have any other tag. Would it be easy to add an "untagged" sub-category below existing tags?
Example of tasks:
a #b Two tags
a #c Two tags
a Only one tag
I'd like a "untagged" list below "#a", that references the last task.
Any opinion about this?