Remove unneeded descriptions and clean up on search forms

[larssandergreen]

Overview

Minor clean up removing descriptions on search forms that tell the user they can enter the complete or partial name to search (I think we can assume the user understands how searching works in 2023) and other redundant descriptions. Also updated a few labels for clarity and consistency.

Before

For example, this is the largest change:

After

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[yashodha]

@eileenmcnaughton do we have consensus on these changes?

[eileenmcnaughton]

@yashodha @larssandergreen I'm going to put these in the dev-digest to see what the general feeling is

[Stoob]

I only partially agree :-) as I think that partial is a useful instruction and not obvious to the user. The other instructions can be removed.

[eileenmcnaughton]

@Stoob @petednz any thoughts? There are a few other UI proposals in the dev-digest if you haven't seen it

[larssandergreen]

@Stoob I think the idea is that there should be a standard expectation when the user sees a text search field. Is at an exact match or a partial match search field? For me, the answer is clearly that it is a partial match field (for one, that's pretty much how every other website works, for another, in CiviCRM when we need an exact match, we use a select to choose the entity, we don't make users type in the exact match). So if this is the standard expectation, it doesn't need to be noted.

I think if we do note that some fields allow partial matches, then the user would reasonably expect that fields that don't note this do not allow partial matches. Of course, we don't do this as there are many partial match search fields with no description text. So I think it's not just an issue of simplicity, but also it's a matter of UI consistency.

[wmortada]

I think these changes make sense and help to declutter the UI. I personally don't think there is a need to tell the user that they can input a partial name.

[totten]

I tend to agree that it looks redundant for day-to-day usage -- but I can also relate to a new user who wants some explanation. My slight preference would be some subtler explanation.

Personal bikeshed ratings (top preference first):

1. Remove the messages. Add something else (like a help-icon, hover-tooltip, or placeholder blurb).
2. Remove the messages (as in the PR's 0348f12).
3. Keep the original message.
4. Keep the original message. Enlarge the font. Make it red. Add underlining.

[mlutfy]

@Stoob Any thoughts on the "partial" feedback?

Personally I think a search hint would make sense if it was something like "name or email", but here "partial or exact match" seems obvious to me.

(I think this should be merged unless there are strong objections)

[larssandergreen]

@mlutfy Do you feel OK merging this now, given the lack of further feedback?

If there are objections, I can add a help text per @totten, but I'm somewhat hesitant to add more help when there isn't much to say, which just makes people less likely to click for help text in the future. Agree with @mlutfy that a hint/placeholder feels like too much here. And we don't really use tooltips for this kind of thing, so I think that would be inconsistent from a UI perspective.

Noting also that this will be a somewhat moot point in the future with Admin UI, where it searches as you type, so it is obvious that partial matches work.

[mlutfy]

@larssandergreen yep, thank you!