Launchpad itself

Bug #160872
Comment #6

Comment 6 for bug 160872

Revision history for this message

Grondr (grondr) wrote on 2007-11-08:

Thanks, William and Matthew---this seems to indicate a -different- UI problem in Launchpad.

To wit: If I go to the advanced search (which I did, before I first filed this bug), and simply do a search with -none- of the "Status and importance" boxes checked, I -do- get -some- bugs. Exactly -which- of these checkboxes is checked "invisibly and by default" is not at all obvious; presumably it's documented somewhere, or one would have to try 'em all and use trial and error. (You've explained which ones are implicitly off in your comments, but that's not documentation, e.g., I shouldn't have to file a bug report to discover this... :) I -thought- (because many interfaces do this---though I think they're misleading when they do) that if NONE of the buttons were checked, they were implicitly ALL checked, but apparently not.

Now that I know this, checking -one- box ("Invalid"), I get many -more- bugs reported. So obviously this set of boxes is "any of several undocumented boxes in this list, UNLESS any boxes were actually checked by the user, in which case any of THOSE boxes, only." This is terrible design.

I suggest that the advanced-search page CHECK the boxes that ARE on by default*, so that way users can see what's really going on and that some of them AREN'T checked. If I'd seen that behavior from the start, I'd never have filed this bug, because my next action would have been to try checking the boxes that WEREN'T checked to see if more bugs surfaced.

[*Or, if it's deemed too inconvenient to have the user turn OFF a set of buttons before turning on some of the defaultly-unchecked ones, you could either have a "turn 'em all off" button you could hit first, or color them differently and have some sort of key -right beside them- explaining what's going on or something---I'd prefer the first of these options, because it's simpler and clearer.]

In the meantime, are people noticing that invalidated bugs are not sending mail about the change of state? Of course, for all I know, there was some bug along those lines months ago that was fixed since then, but I sure never got mail when this bug changed state.

[I'll go reassign the WoL bug to linux-source-2.6.22 once I've written up a workaround.]

Thanks.

Thanks, William and Matthew---this seems to indicate a -different- UI problem in Launchpad.

To wit:  If I go to the advanced search (which I did, before I first filed this bug), and simply do a search with -none- of the "Status and importance" boxes checked, I -do- get -some- bugs.  Exactly -which- of these checkboxes is checked "invisibly and by default" is not at all obvious; presumably it's documented somewhere, or one would have to try 'em all and use trial and error.  (You've explained which ones are implicitly off in your comments, but that's not documentation, e.g., I shouldn't have to file a bug report to discover this... :)  I -thought- (because many interfaces do this---though I think they're misleading when they do) that if NONE of the buttons were checked, they were implicitly ALL checked, but apparently not.

Now that I know this, checking -one- box ("Invalid"), I get many -more- bugs reported.  So obviously this set of boxes is "any of several undocumented boxes in this list, UNLESS any boxes were actually checked by the user, in which case any of THOSE boxes, only."  This is terrible design.

I suggest that the advanced-search page CHECK the boxes that ARE on by default*, so that way users can see what's really going on and that some of them AREN'T checked.  If I'd seen that behavior from the start, I'd never have filed this bug, because my next action would have been to try checking the boxes that WEREN'T checked to see if more bugs surfaced.

In the meantime, are people noticing that invalidated bugs are not sending mail about the change of state?  Of course, for all I know, there was some bug along those lines months ago that was fixed since then, but I sure never got mail when this bug changed state.

[I'll go reassign the WoL bug to linux-source-2.6.22 once I've written up a workaround.]

Thanks.