In tdf#146781, the search feature of the Function Wizard was enhanced so as to include the description of the searched-for function as part of the search. In the same tdf#146781, the possibility to make such expanded search _optional_ was also mentioned, but AFAIU the _optional_ part was never implemented, so the search _always_ includes the function's description, which generates a longer list of resulting functions when performing a search. For experienced users (who might be aware of the function name they are looking for), the longer resulting list can be (or rather, is) inconvenient. I would like to request the addition of a check box, perhaps just to the side of the "Search:" title above the search box, allowing the option to either include (or not) the description of the functions as part of the search. Having the check box in the same dialogue and near the search box allows for a simple intuitive (and easily discover-able) toggle. The relevant text for the proposed check box would be a simple "Include description of functions" or "Include functions' description". An optional helping tool-tip when hovering on such check box (and/or its corresponding text) would allow a more detailed description of the effect if it, if needed.
Do you have a good example where the search term produces a list that is hard to manage? Searching for "absol" returns 4 results, ABS, AVEDEV... which are easy to grasp. I would add controls even such a checkbox only if absolutely necessary.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > Do you have a good example where the search term produces a list that is > hard to manage? Searching for "absol" returns 4 results, ABS, AVEDEV... > which are easy to grasp. > > I would add controls even such a checkbox only if absolutely necessary. Please read the original report/request, tdf#146781, in which _several_ comments indeed mention the request/possibility to make the descriptions' search *optional* and those include examples too. So this request is not just mine; it was also part of the original tdf#146781. Now, if you demand from users to input the entire name of the function in the search box, then the resulting list will eventually shrink, but that doesn't mean that it is more convenient or more effective/efficient (for users) than it was before the new expanded search (that includes descriptions). Let's give one example as per your request (although the above paragraph describes the logic, which advance spreadsheet "builders/users" will clearly understand without the need of one specific example): 1_ Open the Function Wizard on an empty cell. 2_ Search for "la" (without quotation marks), aimed at the LARGE() function in Calc. * for LO 7.6 (and since 7.5), the resulting list includes dozens of functions (and LARGE() is far down the list, requiring either additional characters in the search box or scrolling down the list). * for LO 7.4, the resulting list shows 10 functions only, and LARGE() is already shown, without requiring additional characters in the search box nor scrolling down. I don't know how (only) one example would demonstrate the logic, because anyone could say "just type more characters"; but that's not the point. Searching the functions' descriptions helps newbies, but let's not make it harder (in comparison to the older/prior situation) for advance users that have been working with functions and the Wizard for years (or for decades). Let's complete the original request with the option / check box in the FW dialogue.
If it's for the advanced users, how about wildcards to switch from full to name-only search? "lar*" would return only LARGE() "*lar*" DOLLAR, DOLLARDE, DOLLARFR, LARGE (and nothing else). I hesitate to agree with too many controls in the UI.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > If it's for the advanced users, how about wildcards to switch from full to > name-only search? "lar*" would return only LARGE() "*lar*" DOLLAR, DOLLARDE, > DOLLARFR, LARGE (and nothing else). > > I hesitate to agree with too many controls in the UI. That sentence shows that you might only use Calc sporadically at best; and I don't mean as part of the UX Team but as an actual spreadsheet "builder/user" focused on real use of Calc. If you were building formulas frequently, especially with the FW, you would have noticed the difference in user's performance already. So your proposal would be to be less efficient for users that were more efficient before the change? No, I have to disagree. The process should improve efficiency while users gain experience. I repeat; the original proposal was to _optionally_ include the functions' descriptions in the search. The current result of tdf#146781 makes the process less-efficient while users are supposed to improve in their experience. That's not really an improvement, especially in the long run for users. One thing is to make Calc easier to use for newbies; another one is to make it harder for experienced users. That is not an acceptable cost for Calc users. Please don't push experienced users to leave Calc for other spreadsheet tools.
You sound a bit angry, don't be. We obviously have different opinions - you ask for a checkbox, I doubt it's needed. Accepting the control is not a big deal for me, just one of many places where we make the application _feel_ heavy, dated, inefficient. I think your arguments are not really strong, well the objection is but I don't see the wide-ranging evidence. Anyway, you need to convince volunteers, and Andreas is usually open for ideas.
What if we sort them differently? First the functions where the name matches and afterwards the functions where the term is in the description? Searching for "lar" gives then: DOLLAR DOLLARDE DOLLARFR LARGE FV IPMT NPER PMT PPMT RATE REGEX VDB
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #5) > you > ask for a checkbox, I doubt it's needed. Accepting the control is not a big > deal for me, just one of many places where we make the application _feel_ > heavy, dated, inefficient. We disagree because the perspective of non-newbies for Calc is very rarely considered. It is not the first (nor third) time I find myself describing a process/procedure in Calc with painful detail and verbosity just because such perspective is not understood/considered. > > I think your arguments are not really strong, well the objection is but I > don't see the wide-ranging evidence. Anyway, you need to convince > volunteers, and Andreas is usually open for ideas. The original request in tdf#146781 was for an _option_, not "let's force the search on function's descriptions so newbies that have almost never used a function could find it without consideration for non-newbies at all". If I were to adopt a similar initiative, I would have to request now to undo/reject the original change. Instead, I am logically requesting to keep helping newbies while avoiding the inefficiency that was introduced. If you don't like the checkbox suggestion, please suggest a better solution to keep helping newbies but without negatively affecting experienced users. After all, I hope you want for newbies to turn into more experienced users, with better performance. (In reply to Andreas Heinisch from comment #6) > What if we sort them differently? First the functions where the name matches > and afterwards the functions where the term is in the description? The list is currently sorted alphabetically. It is intuitive, in whichever direction users' eyes are moving. While separating the resulting list into 2 "categories" might be appealing in the context of this discussion, it would be less intuitive. I am sure that at some point users would "miss" the target function in the list. For experienced users that use the FW frequently, the procedure has to be like muscle memory. If users have to "branch" the semi-automatic reaction to the resulting list, it is less efficient. The FW already has inefficiencies that could be improved (tdf#155316 is only one of them); please don't make it even worse. Some experienced users type-in the formulas directly without using the FW. The FW avoids typos and similar errors, especially with complex formulas, so it is used not only by newbies. Please respect the original request and make the search on functions' descriptions optional, not forced. The way to help newbies and experienced users alike is to allow the _option_ within the FW dialogue.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #5) > Accepting the control is not a big > deal for me, just one of many places where we make the application _feel_ > heavy, dated, inefficient. As long as the _option_ is available in the FW, feel free to put the checkbox somewhere else instead of besides the "Search:" title. I think the suggested place would eventually invite users to try out the 2 alternatives, progressing into the more-experienced kind of users. Perhaps a user is miss-remembering the name of the target function, in which case the check box would invite such user to expand the search. But, if you think that the check box would be better placed somewhere else in the dialogue, or that there is a better UX method, let's hear it.