Filters are also slow as fuck because they almost always need to apply before you can go on. So you are on a results page, you want 4-5 starts with attributes x and y, that’s not just 4 clicks that’s 4 clicks and waiting for the entire thing to reload every time before you can continue.
An other issue more intrinsic to filters is their inconsistency: because only applicable filters are shown entire categories can be missing and you need to hunt through every time.
If you make users click a Go button, they won't notice it, and get frustrated.
It's one of very few times I'll allow an animation. If the go button has been available but not clicked for some seconds, it will call attention to itself. I hate that but the only users who see it are the confused ones who need it. (Hopefully.)
Yes and no. If you wait to indicate # of results from filter choices you run the risk of the user "drilling down" to zero.
That is...pick...pick...pick...Go.."No results for your filters". That's not fun either.
I find I use filters - again Home Depot is a good example of bad - because the search is too loose. I'll enter a brand in the search term and have to use filters to pick only the brand I want to see.
The search should first try to answer the users search, not dump more possible products in the customers' face hoping the buy sonething.
Our solution for this was to put something like a 5-second debounce on automatically updating, but skip the delay and update immediately if the mouse moves outside of the filter area.
An other issue more intrinsic to filters is their inconsistency: because only applicable filters are shown entire categories can be missing and you need to hunt through every time.