Further problems on highlighting (syntax)

[rwrobinson88]

Running another search on Mark 1:5. Think I found a bug.

 

Here it is:

 

 

Notice on the results, the highlight is only going over the predicate phrase and it is not highlighting the Subject phrase (also as a side note, there isn't a compound subject phrase to be searched even though that is what it is in the graph...thought that might want to be added as a search option).

 

 

But! when I search for the lemma ἐκπορεύομαι:

 

 

It does highlight the word and the subject phrase.

 

 

Seems to be a bug. Thought I'd pass it on.

 

Thanks!

[Timothy Jenney]

Try setting your depth to "0" and see of that makes a difference.

[rwrobinson88]

on the subject phrase?

[Timothy Jenney]

Arg, I was looking at the bottom depth settings (which make no difference, as there aren't any search arguments under them).

 

I agree. This looks like a bug to me. Accordance is highlighting the predicate phrase, but not the subject phrase. It should find both.

 

Hmmm...., this leads to another question. When we are searching for two different kinds of phrases like this, I wonder if we should use different colors of lines to identify what kind of phrase is being identified. It occurs to me that we are already using different colors for different kinds of clauses and phrases in the syntax tree. 

[rwrobinson88]

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

 

That is a great idea for the highlights to have different colors. Especially if they could connect to the colors on the graph. (probably easier said than done though.)  

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Given how thin the lines are some colours could be very difficult to see, particularly with some backgrounds. But I agree that in principle it makes sense that the color coding match the syntax charts. Just concerned about readability.

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

This has been fixed. Thanks so much!