My response inline:
On Apr 27, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:
Thx for pulling this together Priss. I agree with all the items in
your 3 buckets. I would add:
+ Collection pulldown and Collection details button into the 2nd
bucket.
+ Login area links into the 2nd bucket
I respectfully disagree and would put this in the third bucket. Users
looking for the collection drop down list and log in are already sold
on cosmo and would already have an account. So maybe we're talking
about different users for these buckets, those who already have an
account and those who are coming to the hub for the first time. I'm
focused on the new users—as you phrased it, 'CC's who don't know
anything about Chandler.'
Additionally, I wonder if there is a class of items that should pop
a little bit more, even though they're technically things that
people won't need unless they're looking for them...the reasoning
being that these are things that users will be unfamiliar with,
especially CC's who don't know anything about Chandler. This would
include stuff like:
+ Mark-up bar buttons: Triage status and Stamping
+ Triage status in the Table
+ Week versus Day view selectors in the Calendar view (the way we
do it is unconventional)
Well yes, the web app does not have a week vs. day view. Why should
this be 'unconventional' on the desktop? Perhaps it would be better
to be 'conventional' on the web app, because causal collaborators
will not understand 'unconventional' approaches unless they see
immediate, significant benefits. (This fell into no. three for me
when I was using the desktop btw. and that was only because Jared had
told me to click on the day of the week to see day view. Clearly he
uses day view—I do not.)
+ Remove and Save buttons (again because we have a multi-pane
layout, users may assume that you don't need to explicitly save
changes).
So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm suggesting we have 2 tiers
in the 2nd bucket.
1 Stuff users need to see immediately, whether or not they're looking
2A Stuff users need to trip over when trying to complete a task,
because they may not know what it is exactly they should be looking
for.
2B Stuff users need to be find easily when looking for them.
Both of these items are for users who need to find it when completing
a task. If they are tripping over it, then we've not done our jobs
and it fell into the third category.
3 Stuff users can find on their own time
This is all great for us, but honestly, I'm not convinced users will
understand the subtleties you're trying to get across in no. two.
Users either see a feature because it truly stands out against the
'grey' of the application or users will ignore it and only 'see' the
feature in context of the activity. Adding these extra levels just
adds more 'noise'. The third item is the 'Oh how neat, I never knew
it did that!', which are the stuff users will discover on their own
after using it after a while, or stuff we emphasize (and de-
emphasize) in direct response to the user's action.
===
It may also be helpful to have a shared understanding of the
various visual techniques available to us when it comes to
implementing or applying the priorities we have set to the UI:
1. Location
+ Above the fold, below the fold
+ Top left corner
Top right corner, center? Highlighted very top of the application
(alert bar) which will slightly overlap the app?
+ Dead center
2. Size
3. Saturation (ie. Grey text versus Black text)
4. Color and Brightness (ie. Bright green v. Dull grey)
5. Layering (ie. Overlay on top of UI, like a dialog)
6. Weight (ie. Line weight, Beveling, Drop shadows)
Does that sound reasonable?
Yes the last part sounds fine to me. Thx. -Priscilla
On Apr 27, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Priscilla Chung wrote:
Here is my list: http://wiki.osafoundation.org/Journal/
OrderOfImportanceWebUI
-Priscilla
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
