do I need to use another number-symbols when I want my webpage to be accessible in other countries? According to Microsoft there are different shape of numbers: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/globalization/locale/number-formatting#:~:text=formatting%20for%20details.-,The%20character%20used%20as%20the%20thousands%20separator,thousands%20separator%20is%20a%20space.
I have been searching since a few days to get a clear answer but I cant find some. Also, on most international websites/apps I only ever see the digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 although the digits for the language actually look different. That unsettles me. I feel like many websites/apps just ignore this fact. Can anybody help me further? Also do I need to know how to activate foreign symbols in html?
I do not know for sure what language you are translating/typing in HTML. But here is an example of what you can use as a guide to certain scripts in Arabic: https://sites.psu.edu/symbolcodes/languages/mideast/arabic/arabicchart/
You may also need to use a converter. For example, I type Chinese on my website by typing the characters into a character to unicode converter. Then I copy and paste the unicode to my HTML text.
Is it possible in XSLT to search and find content, even though the content is misspelled or the words splitted up - even though it shouldn’t?
Example:
I need to find a webshop called bearshop.com, but I search it like this “bear shop”. This will end in a “no results”.
Another example:
I search “progresive” but the right word was “progressive”, and this will end in a “no result” as well.
The most important part is the first example, where the search can be written with or without white spaces and still find the content. Hope someone can help me or lead me in the right direction :)
Kind regards,
Niels
If you are looking for a general way of matching similar words, this is often called fuzzy search and can quite easily be done with Umbraco and Examine.
There may even is a way to use this with XSLT, though I never tested that.
Assuming XSLT/XPath 2.0 you can use //foo[matches(., 'bear\s*shop')].
I've export my bookmarks from FF in to a html file but it's too huge and complicated, so I need to remove some firefox lines from it to make it more lighter and plain.
I can replace basic things in the Notepad++ but I guess I do need some operators for this and I have no idea how to make it work right.
For example here is the line from the file containing a link to Logodesignlove :
Logo Design Love
I need to remove all those tags I don't care about, like LAST_MODIFIED="1256428672", ICON_URI="bunch of digits" ICON="bunch of characters" etc.
And of course I need to remove all those tags in every link in the list.
So I was thinking like use something like "Find all tags LAST_MODIFIED="anynumbers" and replace it with nothing/remove it" - it doesn't work though.
Examle how it should like:
Logo Design Love
So far I removed LAST_MODIFIED and ADD_DATE lines thanks to Aleksandr. So LAST_MODIFIED="\d+" worked just fine. But ICON and ICON_URI are still there. I've tried ICON="\w+" - but it doesn't work. I guess it has something to do with the slashes.
Why look for what you don't want when it's easier to keep hold of what you do want and drop the junk?
(<A HREF=".*?").*?(>.*?>)
with
$1$2
Code edited to suit Notepad++ now I know it doesn't need the special chars escaped. Thanks Aleksandr.
Read up on using regular expressions (the java regex tutorials are a good start http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/regex/), and try one of the online regex tools to help write and test it, such as this one http://gskinner.com/RegExr/
Eg, remove "LAST_MODIF..." with the regex LAST_MODIFIED="\d+"
Otherwise, you may want an XML-specific tool, or even write an XSL. However, I don't know much about that.
I'm creating a multi-lingual site, where an item has a slug for each of the sites languages.
For Arabic slugs (and I assume any other right-to-left languages) it acts strange when you try to highlight it. The cursor moves opposite while in the RTL text..etc. This isn't a terribly big deal, but it made me think that maybe it's not "normal" or "ok".
I've seen some sites with Arabic slugs, but I've also seen completely Arabic sites that still use English slugs.
Is there a benefit one way or the other? A suggested method? Is doing it the way I am ok? Any suggestions welcome.
I suppose that by "slug" you mean a direct permanent URL to a page. If you don't, you can ignore the rest of this answer :)
Such URLs will work, but avoid them if you can. The fact that it's right-to-left is actually not the worst problem. The worst problem with any non-ASCII URL is that in a lot of contexts it will show like this: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D9%87%D8%B1_%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1 (it's just a link to a random article in the Arabic Wikipedia). You will see a long trail of percent signs and numbers, even if the title is short, because each non-ASCII characters will turn to about six ASCII characters. This gets very ugly when you have to paste it in an email, for example.
I write a blog in Hebrew and I manually change the slug of every post to some ASCII name.
When building an application, is there any meaningful difference between the idea of "Find" vs "Search" ? Do you think of them more or less as synonymous?
I'm asking in terms of labeling for application UI as well as API design.
Finding is the completion of searching.
If you might not succeed in finding something, call the feature "Search". For example text search in an editor can fail due to no matches - then calling it "Find" would be lying.
On the other hand: in an established job searching site, you can say "Find a PHP job" because you know that for (almost) anything your users want, there will be offerings. This also makes it sound confident, positive and energetic.
According to Steve Krug in Don't Make Me Think, when talking about usability for a publicly-facing web site, use the word Search for a search box and nothing else. (He specifically prohibits "Find", "Quick Find", "Quick Search", and all variations.)
The rationale is that "Search" is the most commonly understood term, so it's what people will look for when they aren't thinking, and you don't want your users to have to think (at all).
I would say that "find" is focused on getting a single, exact match. As in the example above, you "find" the perfect PHP job.
OTOH, you "search" for jobs that meet your criteria. Searching is what you do when you want to graze through several results. "Search" returns pages of results. "Find" is closer to "I'm feeling lucky."
Of course, the terms get used interchangeably sometimes. But, I think that's the essence of the difference.
In many applications, find means "find on the current page/screen", while search means "search the entire database/Internet." Web browsers, online help, and other applications seem to make this distinction.
Within most applications...
Find typically refers to locating text within the document at hand and jumps to the next occurrence.
Search typically refers to locating multiple documents (or other objects) and returns a list.
I wrote the built-in Find command in Acrobat 1.0 and worked on the full text Search engine for Acrobat 2.0 and 3.0.
Most software at that point that handled large amounts of text had a way to locate an exact match to a single word or phrase and called it Find/Find Next. This is what we called it in Acrobat 1.0. We knew from the start that this wasn't enough to handle entire repositories of documents, so we needed a way to scan across a whole set. We couldn't use Find since that was already in the UI and had established behavior, so we settled on Search. The decision was based on little more than the relatively small set of common words that convey the action.
Even harder is to come up with a reasonable icon for it. Our initial take was to use something similar to the old Yellow Pages logo:
(source: yellowpagecity.com)
but the lawyers shot that down - it was too close. We couldn't use a magnifying glass as we had zoom functions tied to that. We went with binoculars.
I don't think that there is any difference.
But then again, I'm Portuguese. :P
Find = Discover exact
Example: We write "Please find attached" in an email. We don't write "Please search attached".
Search = Discover exact + Related match
Example: Google Search
"Seek and ye shall find"
"Search and you will find"
One angle that (surprisingly) no one has mentioned, is that in English when you say you search something, that something is the thing you're searching within, not the thing you're trying to find. So unless you add the word 'for' (as in, to search for something), the two words are fundamentally different.
It becomes obvious with an example:
Find the room.
Search the room.
Two very different tasks! The first defines the object of your search. The second defines the scope of your search.
That's not completely irrelevant when talking about UIs. If your app has a search feature where the user can specify both the source and the object of their search, you might choose to use the words this way. For example:
Search: Current document
Find: "positive and energetic"
Yes, as some others have pointed out, the word 'Find' does imply a successful search, but let's not start calling app designers liars for using it when success isn't guaranteed. It's become a pretty standard term for searching a document for a particular string.
I think search is more generic and more suitable for text search. Find sounds more like 'find a specific record or a group of records'
After searching You find something.
Search for an answer on stackoverflow that you may find it.
For me Find is the success of a Search, that is to Find is to identify the location of something that's known to exist.
Search should always be used when you have no control on what the user is looking for.
Find talks about a specific one.
Search does not talk about a specific one.
Did you find the picture I requested yet?
No? Please search on internet. I need to present it in an hour.
Another one is below
Please find the attachment in this email.
(or)
You'll find the attachment below.
(or)
Please find attached.
here, we use find because it is a specific document which is attached to email.
we don't use the search here, as there is nothing to search in a larger domain.
Search is the primary interface to the Web for many users. Search should be global (not scoped to a subsite) and available from every page; booleans should be made intimidating since users usually use them wrong
Read this: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/search-and-you-may-find/