« readable yet? | main | Frank O'Hara »
It seems that if you're going to have a Boolean search engine, you'd make it easier to figure out how to add OR and NOT conditions. Clicking on the diagram (despite the text explaining what to do) was not immediately intuitive to me. I think you just really like Venn diagrams, Christina. Or maybe since I'm on an OS 9 Mac, I just really hate client-side Java web applications.
Very cool. Useful? Dunno. It took me too long for me to figure out, which is not a good thing if all I want to do is *search*. And even given the choice of search engines, I just headed straight for Google and didn't bother with any of the other engines.
But still... cool.
Yes, I do love Venn diagrams. And yes, google is still easier to use, BUT why not push forward and see if we can find other ways to make search make sense. Why not play, and expirament and be unafraid to go out on a strange limb?
After all, google exists because someone said "seach is not good enough." when everybody thought it was.
Damn, that's clever.
I'm not sure I would use this as the main search interface for a site, but as an advanced search interface, I think it shows promise. I think the use of four search term boxes would be too intimidating to impose on users immediately. But I wouldn't hesitate to use an interface like this for people who wanted to dig a little deeper. It seems to me to be a pretty powerful way of expressing Boolean searches. Of course, I'd want to test it, but my first impression is positive. Just not in the way they're using it.
Unfortunately, my company forbids the use of Flash or Quicktime or Real Player or or or "for security reasons"--but what this means is that I can't see what this site's about. Would be nice if they could've detected this and shown me what it's about.
Why aren't you e-mailing us with some of these good ideas and useful information? ;)