I was wondering If/how I can set LF Client to open up to the advanced search menu. I have a client that wants this to be the main way users use the documents in the system.
There's no way to go directly to the advanced search item through the desktop client. You can use .lfe's or the lf.exe shortcut command arguments to run a specific search automatically. The documentation for this (that Blake provided) is pretty comprehensive, and there aren't additional items beyond what's listed there.
You might be able to create an .lfe shortcut that does this. In the documentation for .lfe shortcuts it doesn't specifically address what you're talking about, but I wonder if you setup the shortcut to perform a simple search on open so it would open quickly, it might work to get the client opened to the search. I'm not positive though.
I had thought there was a way from modifying the open with option when you look at properties for the LF Client icon. That's what I was hoping for at least
According to the documentation for Automatic Login Options, you can also put the syntax in the Laserfiche shortcut to open Laserfiche to a specific search. It still did not specify opening directly to the Advanced Search Pane though.
I think we are getting closer. Is anyone from Laserfiche able to chime in about this?
While this won't completely achieve the goal, you can use the Client's "Save pane layout" option such that if the user was in the search pane at the time the Client was closed, then the next time the Client is opened, they'll be back in the search pane.
I see this post is a few years old, has there been a solution for this in later versions of Laserfiche? We want the user to open to the Advanced Search, but have the option to make selections. Please let me know if this is possible.
Hi Rolayne,
There is no change to the behavior in the Windows Client. In the web client we've looked into adding the ability to provide a saved search in the URL path and open directly to that loaded search criteria (without running the search itself), but it's not something we've had a chance to implement yet.