Lakhasly

The most obvious aspect of the display is the 'retriever' animation.The use of the expanding menus for these options helps to ensure that the dialogue is relatively simple - complexity is only added when users request these options.However, it is questionable whether this actually makes a significant difference for large groups of users.

The most obvious aspect of the display is the ‘retriever’ animation. However, it is
questionable whether this actually makes a significant difference for large groups
of users. It will be interesting to see whether people pick up on this. I remain open
minded about the arguments for and against it. The interface provides a series of default options grouped on the left. Unlike some
‘find’ dialogues, this has the benefit that users can still see the files being
searched on the right of the screen rather than having the dialogue box on top of
the objects. The most frequent tasks are well supported by the options to search
on names and for items in a file. Arguably less frequent options, including the
search on file size and modification date require further interaction. The use of the
expanding menus for these options helps to ensure that the dialogue is relatively
simple – complexity is only added when users request these options.
The dialogue contains useful default options – the search target is the file
structure shown in the window on the right. The filename is usually active on
calling up the search so simply typing the name and hitting return will initiate a
default search; notice that the search action is active. Many other comments can
be made.