autocomplete list behavouir
jefdriesen at telenet.be
Tue Oct 2 08:06:26 PDT 2012
On 2012-10-02 16:32, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Bearsh wrote:
>> Am 02.10.2012 15:35, schrieb Dirk Hohndel:
>>> I still think that a lot of people will go back to the same places
>>> and over again... I sure do - but then I may not be typical. My
>>> is that anyone who does local diving or has a favorite vacation
>>> will have a rather small set of locations repeat. And very few
>>> will go to hundreds of different dive sites (but again, that could
>>> Is there anyone with a really strong preference and a good argument
>>> one way or another?
>> I agree with dirk, as someone who does most dive from at home, I
>> most sites several times a year.
>> I would even split location in divespot/site and location as several
>> locations provide more than one divespot
> Most do. The way I handle this is that the trip holds the location,
> the dive holds the dive spot:
> This seems to work fine for me. In the collapsed view I see the
> locations, in the expanded view all the dive spots are under their
> respective locations.
Ideally, subsurface should support maintaining dive sites independently
from the dives. Then you can easily attach additional info (gps
coordinates, descriptions, maps, etc) to each site, and link each dive
to a particular site.
And instead of using a hardcoded location/site (or
country/location/site, etc) organization, I would vote to support an
arbitrary hierarchical organization. Then a user is free to organize the
dive sites however he wants. Some will prefer organization by country,
some by the "sea" (e.g. Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, etc). Since
there is no right or wrong, leaving the interpretation up to the user
would definitely be the most flexible!
More information about the subsurface