25 Aug
2009
25 Aug
'09
12:54 p.m.
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Anca Luca <ancapaula.luca(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
no
Exactly. We show a wizard (= multiple steps process), let's provide users
with the UI they're expecting from a wizard (all buttons displayed at all
times).
Guillaume
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> We should make a standard and follow it on other aspects too.
>
> The same discussion is for the pagination: do you show the prev link?
yes
> you do, and it's disabled. But the user
know that a Prev action can be
done
> and he knows it's possition.
>
> The same aspect is for menus too - if I don't have Edit rights - should
I
> see the edit link?
>
> These remarks are very correct:
>
>> Actually, Marius suggested that we keep the "invalid" buttons hidden
(but
>> without changing the positions of the
displayed buttons), for the
> following
>> reasons:
>> 1/ the interface should be as light as possible, we shouldn't crowd the
>> interface with buttons that the user can never push
>> 2/ disabled buttons can be a little confusing, the user wouldn't know
if
>> there
>> is something he needs to do to enable those buttons.
>
> But if you have the icons/links/buttons disabled:
> A. the users knows the possible actions are there and doesn't need to
still
> look for them in the interface;
> B. when the finishing / editing step will occur and will be possible,
the
> user will know where to look for it, because
he seen it before.
> C. the buttons don't disappear and appear like crazy. This is good also
for
the
designer - he can align the controls and the other sibling elements
don't blink from left to right.
I'm really afraid of C) -> buttons appearing and disappearing for no
specific reason (from the user point of view). A button that was there is longer there -> how comes?
Plus the standard practice in all wizards we've looked at with Caty was
to
have all buttons displayed all the time... I
guess if hiding buttons from
one part of the form to the next was a good practice we would have found
a
UX blog talking about it by now (we didn't).
I think I've seen some minimal wizards, with only the usable buttons in.
So I'm afraid we're going against a standard and re-inventing new stuff
just
for the sake of it, with no proven value at the
end of the line. People
are
not (yet) accustomed to form buttons magically
appearing and I don't want
our project managers to be the ones who will have to explain our users
that
"yes, our developers liked hide-and-seek
buttons best so that's what we
implemented" ;-)
It's not magically or chaotically, it's matching what the user can do: you
have
only a button therefore the only thing you can click and could ever click
is
that button, I think it makes it simple.
Now the *only* good reason I find for showing disabled buttons is to
actually
make it obvious for the user that it's a process in multiple steps (it's a
wizard, everybody knows Previous and Next means wizard), not make him
believe
that clicking the only visible button in the first form will get the job
done
and then have the surprise of another step appearing and so on. Make it
clear
from the very beginning what is he doing there (you have multiple steps to
take,
at one point you'll be able to "Insert X", you do have a previous button
and
will be able to return at this step if you mess up something).
Thanks,
Anca
--
Guillaume Lerouge
Product Manager - XWiki
Skype: wikibc
Twitter: glerouge
http://guillaumelerouge.com/
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs