Comments on layout welcome :)

Thanks @toolstack

The inputs and the term scope seem to be misaligned from their labels there.

And I wonder if it can be cleaned up a bit giving 'term' a dedicated column now that it has the input and the radio group. Something like this;

Or if Term should have precedence maybe;

And I noticed the box is displaced on your screen as it's wider and wonder if the bulk actions should have their own row so that the filter/sort/statuses are always on their own row and left aligned as sometimes like in your view the filter/sort boxes feel out of place when they appear in the middle of the page instead of left aligned.

Yeah, the misalignment of the labels is a Firefox weirdness because the filters dropdown uses paragraph tags I think.

The box is displaced because it starts where ever the filter "button" is on the screen, so that's by design.

I'm not sure about splitting the rows, it makes the important stuff (the translations) appear even farther down the screen.

How about something like this:

Minor updates to the above suggestion:

Firefox:

Vivaldi:

Thanks @toolstack I do like the update with Options as a label and the label being above avoids the misalignment on FF.

As to

The box is displaced because it starts where ever the filter "button" is on the screen, so that's by design.
I'm not sure about splitting the rows, it makes the important stuff (the translations) appear even farther down the screen.

I opened #942 to discuss this as I feel it's jarring when displaced like that and wouldn't push the translations much further down (maybe 20px).

@Mte90 I'm dreading writing the change log and post for 3.0 ;)

I did mention it in today's post, I'm thinking for the 3.0 release we might have to do a few posts over the lead up to 3.0. Maybe one for "UI Improvements" like this, one for Variants, one for CLDR and a few others to cover off all the new stuff 😄.

Good idea so we can promote all the changes!

Hi @toolstack
I know I’m probably late.
But why are these terms choices radio buttons instead of checkboxes?
It would allow a much more flexible selection of scope, instead of only the existent combinations.

Example: it’s not possible to choose simultaneously Originals and Context

@pedro-mendonca primarily due to the complexity of the SQL statement, but it could be done.

Hi @toolstack and @Mte90
I understand it might increase the complexity of the SQL statement, but it will give much more power to GlotPress search and usability.
Here is my late suggestion:

The layout is organized by priorities, of most used items, with most common items checked:

Main search fields

• Term
• User
• Search button

Search scope

• Originals - search in originals
• Translations - search in translations
• Contexts - search in contexts
• Comments - search in comments
• References - search in References

Status - filters which status to include in the search

• Current
• Waiting
• Fuzzy
• Untranslated
• Obsolete
• Rejected

Options

• With comment - entries with comments
• With context - entries with context
• With warnings - entries with warnings
• Case sensitive

Maybe we can implement as it is for 3.0 release and in the next version improving also with gathering of feedbacks from the community so we can see what are the problems.
I am afraid that in networks like translate.wp.org can be very slow because the database is huge so is better to see that feature in action in this situation before do advanced changes.

All the options above already exist in GP, it's just not possible to filter for some of them individualy.

I think the idea of allowing a mix of search scope makes sense, but the suggested layout doesn't quite work, for example you can't search for a user in a context 😄

If you want to create a PR (and issue) for this change it might make it in to 3.0, but otherwise we can take a look at this for a future release.

You're right, the Search scope applies only to Term input.

@toolstack I've separated the user as some of the suggestions above, and opened the issue #955