28 Nov
2008
28 Nov
'08
12:11 p.m.
On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
I'm non-binding +1 for 4) .
I think the 2 most important reasons why I like it better are:
* Easy to use: users are guided throughout the process, one action
at a time
2 steps do not seem excessive to me, it's still gonnna be real quick
and it
adapts well to the various use cases we are faced with (insert link,
insert
image etc). It has both the benefits from the wizard and the
treeview. I
think it is a great middle ground between our various proposals.
You didn't comment on my proposal to be able to click insert on the
first screen if you don't need any option applied to the image. I
think it's reasonable and saves unnecessary clicks.
Re the guided stuff just one comment: users just need to be guided on
their first usage of it. Thereafter all they need is productivity.
* The dialog size is fixed, action buttons are always
at the same
position
on screen
This would work too with option 3. The action button would always be
at the same position. The second/right screen is not about action
buttons, it's about choosing options.
=> this one is specifically important to me.
480*480 is a good
medium ground
between a generic, small-footprint dialog box size that can be used
for most
purposes (from a treeview to a file upload) and it would fit well on
an
EEEpc 900's screen (which is probably the lowest common denominator
in terms
of screen resolutions we should be able to support: 1024*600,
especially
given how ubiquitous small laptops are becoming these days).
Having dialog boxes with a consistent look & feel (same location for
buttons) is very important since it will make user expectations much
easier
to manage => the same kind of button always located at the same
place will
greatly improve usability.
Yes, no doubt about this. That's why action buttons are always placed
at the bottom of dialog screens. However having fixed size dialog
boxes is another matter and I don't believe in it. We should do it
when we can but it really depends on the content we need to display.
Forcing a second screen in a wizard fashion is not always good. It's
only good *IF* the second screen is mandatory, if it's not then a
drawer or tabs is a better solution.
In our case at hand the second screen is optional and this is why a
wizard is not a good structure.
Thanks
-Vincent
Guillaume
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote:
Why do you say that? With your argument every user is dumb and would
not be able to use a computer at all. Have you every seen a computer
OS screen when there's only 1 button and wizards to go to the next
step? Come on, look at your screen, and see all the buttons and
places
you can click (right now when typing this I can see at least 100
locations I can click and I'm on a Mac, reputed for being easy to
use). Life is not just a wizard! :)
I agree we should not make complex screen but there's a fine line
between complex and useful. I even don't disagree with option 4 even
though I don't think it's required (unless we wanted to make it work
on mobile devices for ex but then it's a completely different skin
that we would need and it would be pretty stupid to use a mobile
device design on large screens since you'd loose lots of screen
estate).
Ok back to constructive comments:
What about 2 buttons on the first screen:
* Insert
* More Options...
If you click insert you're done and the image is inserted right away.
If you click options... then we have 2 possibilities: 1) it opens a
drawer or 2) you go to the second screen. In the drawer/second screen
you would specify additional stuff like image size, advanced style
parameters, etc.
It's not as good as option 3 but it's close since you can skip one
step by clicking "Insert" right away. Also "our super dumb users"
would not see the options immediately so they would not run away :)
WDYT?
I agree it's not a big deal. Still I'm unsure why we need 2 screens.
The one argument that seems valid to me is screen estate but then I'm
not sure it wouldn't fit (we need to have it work on 1024x768 and not
lower since all our site is made to work on 1024x768).
[snip]
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Guillaume Lerouge
Product Manager - XWiki
Skype ID : wikibc
http://blog.xwiki.com/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
Couldn't we show the images in the tree (as thumbnails)?
In several wikis/CMS I've seen they use a media browser showing
thumbnails of pictures and this looks a good way to select the
picture
to me. If I have to open all nodes to see the pictures below it might
be hard to select the picture I want. It might be better to list all
pictures found in a given space or wiki (still using a live grid so
that performances are not penalized of course).
Maybe a checkbox to switch from treeview to image browser?
Re the image selection:
* It would be much much better to see the images before choosing
them
(the preview comes too late). You cannot choose an image on its
name
alone that's too hard.
The only solution I see for this is to have a tooltip with a preview
in the treeview. * What is
the camera icon doing? Is it just an image?
Yes.
* How do I enter advanced parameters for images?
This mockup is about the wiki explorer, I've put the example of the
image insertion but this part is not to be taken as a proposal.
Apart from this it looks good to me but I still
have a small
preference for 3 since
- as a user I prefer to see all options to understand where I'll
find
the feature I'm looking for
s/user/power user/ -
it's one click less
IMHO an extra click is only a problem if the user has to think where
to click and why to click.
I agree that 2 or more extra clicks are a problem but only one, with
the action button always at the very same place, no.