You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
You have a list of vehicles. The list displays Make and Model to the user. Data tokens contain vehicle type.
User types "tr" — this matches "Trucks" in data tokens.
UI displays "Trucks" as something like an optgroup along with all matching makes and models listed beneath… any other matches that are not found in tokens are displayed individually (above or below data token matches — maybe a configurable option)
You have a list of countries. The list (option label) displays full country name to the user. Option value contains the 2-letter country code. Tokens contain other associated tags (continent, political groupings)
User types 'DE' — this matches "DE" in one option value as well as Denmark in on option label
UI displays both Germany and Denmark
Since the match occurred on an option value as opposed to a data token, the matches are displayed individually instead of using a grouping (i.e., as opposed to something like an optgroup)
Ideally, UI would append the option values for all results in a column to the right (applying a CSS class to differentiate it from the option label) — whenever an option value match for one value has occurred. So in this case, it would be something like:
Denmark | DK
Germany | DE
(Ideally, the De and DE in both would be underlined/bolded/highlighted in some way.
I realize this could be problematic when either or both option labels and values are long strings, as displaying both would be even harder. This could either be a trade-off up to the developer to weigh, or it could be dealt with by limiting the display width of each, truncating what is displayed, and using a hover popover to reveal the full text of each in those cases, although it's likely the user will recognize them to be the desired results just from what is visible.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For example:
(For #3)
For (#2)
For (#1)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: