I have a working implementation of this now at http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888/

This looks pretty cool. However, since the filter is remembered across validations (good), there should probably be some indicator around the filtering button saying that filtering is in effect.

(In reply to comment #2)
> This looks pretty cool. However, since the filter is remembered across
> validations (good), there should probably be some indicator around the
> filtering button saying that filtering is in effect.

I reckon that's easy enough to add. Do you have suggestions on exactly what it should say?

I'm thinking it should include a count of how many messages are actually hidden due to filtering being in effect. So, something simple like "7 messages filtered."

Maybe even something more explicit like “N messages hidden by filter”

(In reply to comment #4)
> Maybe even something more explicit like “N messages hidden by filter”

OK, have added that now and pushed it to http://qa-dev.w3.org:8888 (to see it you may need to reload a few times or otherwise force your browser to load from cache).

I went with "N messages hidden by filtering" (rather than just "filter") because "filtering" sounds better than "filter" singular, and also I guess it's more accurate in that it's the name of the feature ("Message filtering").

Note that the count updates dynamically if you click any of the checkbox controls or show-all/hide-all links.

At the risk of bikeshedding the wording on this: I'd kind of prefer that the top-level indicator not explicitly use the word "hidden" if we can. So I propose instead having it just say, "Filtered N messages".

The reason is, saying that some messages are "hidden" sorta implies that they should ideally be shown, and that the user is doing something wrong by "hiding" them. "Filter" on its own is a much more neutral term that doesn't imply any kind of value judgement: the user is just filtering out some messages that they've decided at some point they don't need to see every time.

For the same reason I think it would be better to change the "Hide all" links to say, "Filter out all" instead.

The context of this, I really would like for this feature to help make it easier for users to not focus on making their content 100% valid just for the sake of being able to say it's 100% valid, and to be able to see a results page without any errors/warning/info messages shown, and not be made to feel like they're doing something wrong.

I realize that could be open to abuse by some users who would just end up selecting "Filter out all errors" all the time -- or least, filter out some errors that they really should not be filtering out.

Anyway, I realize I'm probably wringing my hands about this too much, and maybe the difference between "N messages hidden by filtering" and "Filtered N messages" is too subtle to be of concern to most users.

I think "hidden" and "hide" are clearer than "filtered" or "filter out". The latter can be interpreted as either "hide" or "show".

(In reply to comment #7)
> I think "hidden" and "hide" are clearer than "filtered" or "filter out". The
> latter can be interpreted as either "hide" or "show".

True. So I reckon I'll leave them as-is, then

I agree with zcorpan.

(In reply to comment #9)
> I agree with zcorpan.

Yeah, I can see that you guys are right, so I'll keep it as "hidden" and "hide". It's clear and it matches user expectations from similar kinds of applications, I think.

landed the backend for this quite a while back