closed livingstoneonline/livingstoneonline#180

Tablet: Catalogue facets

awisnicki

See screen shots. At this resolution, rather than making the last three lines very long. Let's instead make the search bar very long and then all the rest of the facets can be half a line long. screen shot 2017-07-01 at 13 19 55

nigelgbanks

Making this changes is at least >5 hours if it's to maintain the look it currently has at larger resolutions. The grouping of elements can't be the same at the different resolutions if we're to achieve this and the appropriate ordering:

<img width="765" alt="screen shot 2017-07-24 at 20 38 55" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/487373/28541231-26d5ea0a-70b0-11e7-9e34-8a411a804e8c.png">

So to achieve it I'll have to add duplicate elements and the logic for them, etc. There is no clean way to do this unfortunately.

awisnicki

Yargh! OK, let's table this for a bit and concentrate on the other issues outstanding. We can come back to this and discuss options.

awisnicki

I think we need to come up with a solution for this before we push to prod. Perhaps we can discuss this along with the logo issue mentioned in #164?

awisnicki

We forgot to discuss this today. But in any case, I think I've come up with a solution. See the screen shots below with what I've called break points 1, 2, and 3. Basically, I think break point 1 is fine and break point 3 is also fine, so it's only break point 2 that needs to be fixed. Here are two options, Either is fine with me:

  1. Skip the rendering of facets on break point 2, and go right from 1 to 3 (probably the easiest solution).
  2. On break point 2, also extend creator and the three year dropdowns across one line (like break point 3), thereby leaving only four boxes at the two distributed over two rows: search/search catalouge/access/clear (slightly more work to implement this, but probably the better solution?) So I'm going to remove the "on hold" label here.

screen shot 2017-08-04 at 21 59 45 screen shot 2017-08-04 at 21 59 50 screen shot 2017-08-04 at 21 59 58

nigelgbanks

Had to go with option 1. because option 2 has the same essential problem as stated before.

awisnicki

I think that's fine, and I'm happy that there turned out to be an easy solution for this. Thanks again.