Easier viewing of items?
It's a pain to view each items 9 at a time, especially when there's over 400 pages... selecting the number to view per page would be perfect.
It’s actually not 9, exactly. It’s the number of items that will fit on one line given your current window size. More than one line would start getting clunky and take up more space than is feasible, right?
Actually, the first day that the new site design went live, it wasn’t the magic fullscreen thing we see now. Instead, there was a scrollbar, and scrolling down from the preview section would reveal a good 4 lines of items for a total of 28. However, users complained that they preferred the fullscreen style so as to avoid excessive scrolling, so we adjusted the design to match users’ preferences.
So, I like the idea of being able to view more items at once, but I’m not sure how that would be feasible while still maintaining a reasonable amount of screen real estate for the preview itself. Any thoughts on that? :/
(Also, if you really, really prefer scrolling, the site will switch to the scroll-based layout once the browser window isn’t very tall. And then you’ll have many lines of items—it’ll just be a pain to scroll down to them. Everything’s a trade-off, I guess.)
Was about to suggest this but realized I already commented... 7 years ago.........
Please look at my mockup again. I still think that's a much better solution, and click next over and over is still really annoying.
I think the mockup is a great idea, I absolutely hate clicking through 40+ pages.
Maybe even add the search tab to the existing boxes, so it could look like Closet > Search > Sharing > Outfits?
This would accommodate smaller screens/windows, but I think nowadays Anon's mockup should work for most. I mean what percent of the population has a square screen?
What about keeping the item list where it is right now, along the bottom, but having it scroll horizontally? Maybe with a large "NEXT" arrow at each end (stretched over the entire height of the area) so that it's easier to press instead of a tiny scrollbar button.
AdminMatchu Matchusian (Admin, OpenNeo) commented
Hmm, interesting. I like the general look :) A few thoughts:
* I really like the idea of a more graphical search form alongside the text-based search (mainly for the main items page where there's tons of room for it). If only because I often get emails asking how to do certain things ;P There's a cost in that the current search system is strongly tied to the idea of text queries, so it would take some restructuring to be able to handle more abstract query representations.
* Color/species needs to be next to gender/emotion. Those two controls are extremely related, and the former is almost exclusively used immediately after the latter. (And gender/emotion looks lonely.)
* It's not obvious on first glance that the rightmost box is search results. I feel like, structurally, the controls need to be inside the box in order to make real sense. (The controls in the top toolbar are there because they're general controls regarding the general state of the outfit; the item search is not only unrelated to outfit state, so doesn't fit, but also seems far too distinct from the search results that it controls.) The structural issue seems pretty easy to fix, since we can easily include the controls in the same bordered box, but then we hit two new issues. First, functionally, what happens when the user scrolls down? (That's pretty easy, though: the controls get to float at the top of the box, and the results scroll separately.) The second is more problematic, though: we end up with a serious visual imbalance after moving that around. Thoughts on that? :/
* I'm also not sure about putting two boxes that look a whole lot like each other right next to each other. It looks really neat, but could get confusing to use, since position is literally the *only* significant visual distinction right now, and the user shouldn't have to think about which is which. How can we either make them more clearly distinct, or merge them somehow (since they kinda perform similar functions)?
* I note that we can only see 12 items in this mockup, so, at least on your screen resolution, we've only actually gained enough space for 3 items being available at a time. So now we need to think about pagination: where does it go in the box, does it float like I'm proposing the controls might or does it scroll with results? And, more importantly, it seems functionally confusing to me to first have to SCROLL to see more results, and THEN click a link to see even more of them. I'm usually not a fan of an infinite-scrolling UI, but maybe it's appropriate here. Thoughts?
* And, here's the final question, most important: what happens on smaller screen resolutions? That mockup is at a width of 1366, and, not only do about 40% of Dress to Impress users have smaller screens than that, but not everyone uses Dress to Impress in fullscreen :/ This *could* be implemented as a design that only kicks in when the window wide enough, like how we have a totally-non-fullscreen design when the window is too narrow. But I'm not sure how much time to put into a conditional design. Thoughts on that?
So! I really like that this mockup brings us closer to more usable search results, but there are still a few kinks to work out before it becomes worth the man-hours (that is, umm, my free time ;D). Let me know what you make of this feedback, and let's see if we can polish this off. (I <3 open-source projects! Collaboration FTW!)
Thanks for your help!
I've made a mockup of how I would lay the site out. I would much prefer this as you could scroll though items, see more at one time, not have to wait for them to load each time, and still see the preview. I know that this wouldn't work on some resolutions, probably anything smaller than mine, but mines not even that big, so I think it's doable.
I also did a little to the search, because I find myself typing "species:dissdfksd is:pb" and "species:dfgdsf -is:nc" over and over again, it would be much easier with checkboxes and drop downs.
Let me know what you think.