Hi Steve On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 06:58 +1200, Steve Edmonds wrote:
> Hi Planas. > > On 22/06/11 10:05 AM, planas wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 23:09 +0200, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > > > >> Hi Björn, all > >> > >> Björn Balazs schrieb: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I am a little unsatisfied with the amount of individual threads going into > >>> the direction of: "We need a new interface for LibreOffice - and it needs > >>> to > >>> look linke this...". > >> For me they show the high interest of our team members in the UI design > >> area. But you're totally right: We need to integrate the different > >> proposals in general directions for UI improvements. > >>> This is a Free Software Project. As a design team, we will not need to > >>> convince ourselves about this need to change the GUI (we all agree on > >>> that), > >>> we will need to convince the people actually doing (and financing) it - > >>> the > >>> developers and the companies paying them. > >> Even if a large group of developers are paid by companies, there is > >> another group coding on their own. > >> > >> What we need are at least a few developers interested in UI design. If > >> we can convince them, our ideas will become code and finally find their > >> way into the product. > >> > >> But if we can convince more than just a few developers by showing the > >> needs our users to the entire community, this would get more developers > >> interested and involved... > >>> [... we should never argue about personal opinions ...] > >>> > >>> So, how can we make this more productive? > >>> > >>> Ideas are good, visualisations are even better. So let us find a way to > >>> not > >>> comment on these, but to collect them with the goal of easy comparision > >>> with > >>> eachother. A gallary of ideas and visualisations of the future LibO. > >> A gallery is great - but I'd rather think of a gallery of single UI > >> improvements (with visualizations from different mockups) than of a > >> gallery of the different mockups. > >> > >> If several mockups contain sidepanes, similar context menus or context > >> sensitive tools, these should be combined as features, based on user > >> data (already existing or new to be reached for) and expert statements, > >> decided on their positive/negative impacts and recommended for > >> implementation based on a specification containing all the necessary > >> information for the developers. > >>> We should then try to extract the dimensions these ideas differ on. > >>> Knowing > >>> these we can then again use user-centric methodologies to have the users > >>> decide about what they like. > >> Of course user feedback is the most important quality measurement for UI > >> modifications. But based on the user's likings it stays to us to decide > >> which feature should be implemented in which way: > >> > >> There are more than design aspects to consider (marketing, present user > >> base, documentation, coding effort, interdependency with other areas of > >> the product ...), users can't have in mind. > >>> With this data we will have much less trouble to convince the > >>> code-sponsors > >>> to go into a certain direction. > >> That's true - real user data are a very good argument to convince > >> marketing and development ... > >>> So - the main point I am argueing for is a gallery of interface ideas. > >>> Easy > >>> to compare and on one spot. What do you think about this? > >> +1 > >> > >> I'd start with a gallery of the already presented mockups > >> (perhaps with a short description of their features) and then go through > >> this gallery and collect the single features for another gallery of UI > >> elements / positions / ideas as a basic tool for our overall concept. > >> > >> I don't know if a gallery or a table would fit our needs better. > >> > >> While a gallery is easier to create and maintain, a table allows to add > >> more fields than just one caption below each image. > >> > >> With a gallery we probably need to go to the gallery entry's wiki pages > >> to get the necessary information. > >> > >> A table (containing mid-size images in one of their columns) would allow > >> to add the features contained in the mockup, the rationale for each > >> specific design element (if existing) and many more information. > >> > >> On the other hand it's harder to write than just to the gallery. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Bernhard > >> > >> -- > >> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org > >> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ > >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > >> deleted > >> > > Could we circulate the link to other LO lists and possibly post it on > > the LO site for users to access? I was thinking of broadening our answer > > base. > > > > I think you will have roughly three groups: those who prefer an improved > > version of the current UI but with limited graphical changes; those who > > prefer a more distinctive UI (there may be a few major groups here); and > > finally those who are indifferent about the exact look as long as it > > meets certain goals such being customizable, well organized. > > > > Personally, I am most in the last group of being more interested in > > meeting certain goals rather than the graphical layout itself. I would > > prefer to let the layout be determined by specific design goals such as > > user customization, being well organized. I do not object to a new > > interface if it will meet these and similar goals nor do object to > > keeping the current interface if these goals can be enhanced. > > > > For Linux users, you are probably familiar the debate about the Unity > > GUI (basically a customizable dock with indirect access to all the OS > > features) versus the more traditional GUI interfaces that are similar to > > Mac OS and Windows. I actually found a Linux version that combined > > elements of both the traditional interface and customizable docks, a > > middle of the road solution. Ironically, this version developed these > > ideas based on user comments from installing Linux on user boxes. The > > docks allow me to have access to the programs or folders I want quick > > access to while the traditional elements allow me to use access > > everything else the way I am have doing for years. > > > > I think we probably can combine the best features of the traditional UI > > and newer ideas into a winning UI that the vast majority of users will > > like. The key is the proper balance to obtain the most effective > > interface. > > > I am more in your group. I am more interested in getting productivity > (getting the job done efficiently) for myself and employees than how LO > looks. This isn't to say that the look isn't important to entice use and > productivity, but I think you need to start at usage before moving to a > significant UI change, otherwise it is likely to change again when usage > is studied. > There must be a regional or usage group influence involved as I do not > know anyone in the educational institution I have association with (500+ > seats Office 2010) who saw the ribbon as an improvement, but obviously > many do. So treading carefully and basing change on sound investigation > with all user groups is desirable rather than change for changes sake. > > Like you I think a combination is going to work best. Input from the > survey will be important and may be a number of surveys will be required > to evaluate the suggestions put forward as they progress. > I like a comment Steve Jobs said in the 80's when Apple launched the Mac, His goal was to make using a compute easy to use so would be similar to another household appliance. The focus he had was on utility and that forced certain UI/GUI choices. Some the choices made were due to hardware limitations of the era, most where based on how people like to work. Now we have much more powerful hardware that can things with an UI that were dreams in the 80's. The constant is people, while used to working with/on computers have not really changed that much. UI designs that forget humans have not changed fundamentally over the last 30 years could be actually more difficult to use. The problem is to make the UI that best mirrors how a person will interact with the device, in our case desktops and laptops primarily and use it. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
