(Not sure of a technical name for this, but...)
Meaning, instead of the arrows that you use to go forward or back one page at a time when searching for apparel, you should be able to select the specific number of the page you want.
[And/or being able to enter the specific number of the page.]
So, for example;
If you grab some apparel but see something you like in Page 11 of Body apparel, and want to come back to it and try it on after you've finished rearranging and/or sorting out in the slots what you've already selected, you don't have to slowly tick past every page until you get to Page 11 - You can just select Page 11 and go straight to it without hassle.
I believe this'd make things a heck of a lot easier!
(Not sure of a technical name for this, but...)
Meaning, instead of the arrows that you use to go forward or back one page at a time when searching for apparel, you should be able to select the specific number of the page you want.
[And/or being able to enter the specific number of the page.]
So, for example;
If you grab some apparel but see something you like in Page 11 of Body apparel, and want to come back to it and try it on after you've finished rearranging and/or sorting out in the slots what you've already selected, you don't have to slowly tick past every page until you get to Page 11 - You can just select Page 11 and go straight to it without hassle.
I believe this'd make things a heck of a lot easier!
This has been addressed by one of the developers - the reason that this is not an option is because the search algorithm can have just an "a" inputted as a search term and it would pull up every item that had an "a" in its name, which is quite a lot. Then it would have to calculate the number of pages and then which items are on which page. This is more complex and requires more processing time, which is why they chose to omit it! If I can find the post I will edit with the link.
Edit:
here it is!
This has been addressed by one of the developers - the reason that this is not an option is because the search algorithm can have just an "a" inputted as a search term and it would pull up every item that had an "a" in its name, which is quite a lot. Then it would have to calculate the number of pages and then which items are on which page. This is more complex and requires more processing time, which is why they chose to omit it! If I can find the post I will edit with the link.
Edit:
here it is!
Oh.
I can understand the complexity and/or apprehension behind such a feature; though that's really too bad.
In that case, I hope that perhaps one day, it can become a feasible option to be reconsidered.
Thank you very much for letting me know and for linking me!
Oh.
I can understand the complexity and/or apprehension behind such a feature; though that's really too bad.
In that case, I hope that perhaps one day, it can become a feasible option to be reconsidered.
Thank you very much for letting me know and for linking me!
