From: "s.ross" <cwdinfo@...>
Date: 2008-03-20T05:05:21+09:00
Subject: Re: For Comment: Gem Browser

On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> It looks excellent.
>
> + Description: The way the description has been added is great.  The  
> font
> is a touch small, and a way to unexpand it again after expanding  
> might be
> nice, though I suppose the unexpand isn't really important.

 >> In the queue.

>
> + Cookies: Glad to hear it doesn't break without cookies now.  Thank  
> you.
> Even though I'm accepting cookies from the site, websites that fail
> without cookies bother me -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 >> Point taken.

> + 25 results: Are you planning to add some functionality for seeing  
> the
> rest of the results at some point, or just expect that people will  
> refine
> their searches somehow if they don't get the results they wanted?

 >> Lower in the queue. I personally feel that the more people think
 >> about their question, the better their answers will be. I'll  
consider
 >> pagination if people think it's important

> + Logo: I like "{ zippy graphic omitted }".  Don't take my  
> preference in
> this for objective advice, though.

 >> I had to put a dig in :)

> + Help: In my opinion, the way you have the help text presented is
> excellent.  Keep it.

 >> Thanks

> I tend to keep JavaScript turned on in my browser, but there are (of
> course) others who do not.  The fact the Gemmy Gem Browser is unusable
> without JavaScript seems like an unnecessary limitation.  This  
> probably
> isn't the most important problem to fix, but you might consider it for
> the future, in case someone wants to use it from Lynx, or even write a
> command line script in Ruby that accesses results from GGB.

 >> This is exposed as a REST service, so anyone can do searches via
 >> a simple HTTP protocol. Pretty cool, eh?