Page 13 of 17
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:12 am
by Chacal
Impressive work indeed. Very professional.
This will be not only usefull for Age builders, but excellent for the public image of the GoW itself.
tachzusamm wrote:The "About" and "Registration terms" texts now contain meaningful information. No need to agree to lorem ipsum any longer.
On the other hand, maybe latin is less cryptic than legalese...
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:46 am
by Trylon
Except for the fact that lorum ipsum isn't Latin, and doesn't mean a single thing
Though perhaps the same thing can be said for legalese
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:00 pm
by Paradox
Trylon wrote:Except for the fact that lorum ipsum isn't Latin, and doesn't mean a single thing
Though perhaps the same thing can be said for legalese
Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.
-- from
http://www.lipsum.com/
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:14 pm
by Trylon
Mmh, I thought it had become so garbled over the years that it had only a resemblance to latin, and didn't have any meaning left.
(The popularly used text I mean, not Cicero's original one)
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:38 am
by diafero
The "Lorep ipsum" actually IS meaningless because yes, it was taken from a text by Cicery, but it is not just copy'n'pasted from there: Only some words were used while others were left out, and sometimes, only a part of the word was used (e.g. "lorem" is actually "dolorem"). The only thing it really has in common with the original text is the order of words. Also see the
wiki article.
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:18 am
by Whilyam
Maybe instead of latin Uru web designers could put up passages in D'ni
Looks fantastic.
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:48 am
by tachzusamm
Shorah.
Currently I'm working on an improvement (or better said, on the real implementation) of the search functionality.
Busy with this, I'm wondering about the most convenient solution for the syntax of the search field where you have to type your query.
Let me explain.
Assume you are searching for some pets, prefereable black cats and small brown dogs.
Common practice for such search fields is to use a logical understanding like computers behave, that is, if you want to get cats *and* dogs, you would have to type "cats OR dogs" (or "cats|dogs" or "cats,dogs" which means the same).
For instance, the needed query for what you are searching for in the example would be like:
"cats and black or dogs and brown and small" (or shorter: cats+black, dogs+brown+small).
But people don't think like computers; natural language unfortunatelly means just the opposite when we talk about the meaning of "and" and "or".
A user who did not learn how to query would intuitively type "cats AND dogs" if he wants to find both.
So, a more intuitive query could be:
"black cats and small brown dogs" (or shorter: black cats, small brown dogs).
So I'm asking you for your opinion: Should we stick to the "common practice" search syntax logic which is used by most websites or search engines,
or should we try to make is this time a bit more intuitive (and IMHO more user-friendly)?
Technically, the results would be the same.
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:01 am
by Nadnerb
I think it would be preferable to simply throw out the words "and", "or", and any other common words that can't be used as nouns.
The resulting search for "cats and dogs or mice" would then become simply "cats dogs mice". The search itself should always treat the search word set as though it were using OR, but favor results that contain more than one of the terms. So the results would be ranked by the total terms matched.
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:54 am
by teedyo
One could also have check boxes for "any of the terms" and "all of the terms".
If I do a search for an image containing black kittens and brown puppies; I don't want to have to sift through a bunch of images that only contain one or the other. Weighting like nadnerb suggested only works for small lists of criteria: ie brown kittens and black puppies would be weighted the same as the search I actually want with weighted "OR"-ing.
Re: What about a texture exchange server?
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:46 am
by BenB
tachzusamm wrote:So I'm asking you for your opinion: Should we stick to the "common practice" search syntax logic which is used by most websites or search engines,
or should we try to make is this time a bit more intuitive (and IMHO more user-friendly)?
My personal opinion is that most of us are more than familiar with standard search convention for complex filtering, and that changing what we've learned from "common practice" would be more awkward than going with what you suggest might be "more intuitive" for non-computer-users.
And I always thought that coding for "anything goes" everyday humanspeak might be more difficult for your programming than using a standard computer-friendly syntax logic. So my own feeling is that you shouldn't make your job any tougher than it already is!