MEM wrote:
> Well, here I would say, that I will be very angry as well, but on one > condition, if, for some reason, it was important to have (for > cross-data proposes or something else), access to both information at > the same time. > I cannot see a reason for doing so on this context. (that doesn't mean > that no one else sees one, of course, still, that is something that I > would like to see how the end users will react to that, by thinking > out loud), and if it's really a big usability issue, then the vertical > portfolio effect will be dropped. OK, one final comment then time to move on. I think the root of the problem is one of user expectation : with a tabbed interface, the user knows in advance that he/she will be able to see the contents of exactly one tab at a time, and that revealing the contents of one tab will necessarily entail the concealing of the contents of the other(s) (the "radio button" effect); with an expand/contract interface, I believe that the user expectation would be that each expand/contract control is independent, and therefore he/she wold not expect that expanding one would contract two others, /particularly/ if, like me, he/she starts by expanding the first, then the second, then the third -- since expanding the second did not contract the first, I have already been led to believe that expansion does not also entail contraction. ENDS :-) ** Phil. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
