On 9 Mar 2006, at 00:05, David John Burrowes wrote:
> Hello Calum,
>
> I've read through your specification. I'm happy to see this spec
> and have an oportunity to comment on it. I think it is generally
> very nice.
>
> My comments are going to be written in the order of the content of
> the document.
Thanks... my responses inline...
> Question: I've often heard in usability studies people basically
> asking for basically a basic layout of information in the UI to be
> like Windows... not that they want a clone of Windows, but just
> that this is what their muscle memory and mental familiarity
> expect. With this in mind, I wonder why we aren't doing something
> more like Windows XP's Start menu, which is dual columned and
> separates recently frequently used apps from links to common places
> in the filesystems/dataspace, and so on. I'd think that would be
> better for the familiarity/usability of this environment.
Have to say I loathe the two-columned menu and turn it off whenever I
get the chance :) But I'd be happy enough to experiment with it if
we have the engineering resources to do so. That would be a pretty
major functionality patch I suspect though, and one of our goals is
to reduce the already-high number of those we maintain, so that may
be one for the back burner this time around. (If, as Glynn says,
Novell are going with it for their next release, though, we may not
have to wait too long.)
>
>> From a purely "appearance" standpoint, I'm also a bit concerned
>> that our Launch menu looks basically like the Windows one did in
>> 2000. Wouldn't that give folks somewhat familiar with the
>> Microsoft UI transitions to have a gut-level feeling that we're
>> very dated and old fashioned?
That is somewhat deliberate (or at least it was when we first
released JDS); most companies and institutions we were shooting for
weren't using the latest and greatest Windows, so we were trying to
present something that looked familiar to Windows 95/98 users to
minimize their retraining efforts (which was our overarching goal for
the JDS at the time).
Of course our target market has changed a little since then, so an
update may be appropriate. As yet though, our marketing folks
haven't been sufficiently forthcoming about what flavours of Windows
our potential "switcher" market is now using, so if you know, please
tell me :)
> TOP LEVEL;
> - I don't think there's a need to distinguish the quick launch
> things differently. Given how little most users customize
> environments, I think that kind of information would just be
> unnecessary visual "noise" no matter how it is distinguished.
>
> - I don't agree with the notion that app names should only appear
> on the quick launch (and star office) items. My reason for this is
> are twofold:
> 1) I feel the menus full of "generic" names makes the whole
> environment feel a little "cheap"
> 2) I think it's a bit confusing to launch "Image Editor" and be
> presented with a big dialog proclaiming "GIMP" and subsequent UI
> naming "GIMP" rather than "Image Editor". In some cases my first
> reaction is "Oh, there's a bug here. I chose "Archive Manager" and
> got something called "File Roller".
>
> I do really like the pairing of the product name with a little
> description of it (Firefox Web Browser) rather than "Firefox"...
> that provides both bits of info in what seems a generally
> unobtrusive manner.
Okay, I can think of three ways of doing this:
Menu entry Tool tip
---------- --------
Firefox Web Browser Browse the world wide web
Web Browser - Firefox Browse the world wide web
Web Browser Firefox: Browse the world wide web
Any preferences? The main concerns I'd have with putting the app
name right on the menu is that (a) it might get a bit cluttered), and
(b) it might look a bit ugly on those menus where some app names
start with capitals (Firefox), and some with lower case letters jEdit).
>
> - I wouldn't put the checkbox for quick launch apps in the caplet.
> It solves the one case you mention of someone changing the
> preferred app and not understanding that the things in the quick
> launch area are references to existing apps. On the other hand, it
> does strongly imply that we've reserved those exclusively for these
> apps.
Yes, that's a good point.
> (on the other hand, I can't figure out how one changes what is in
> the quick launch area. Maybe if that were more obviously presented
> it would help this concern?)
Well, I'm /assuming/ we're at least going to modify the menu editor
that comes with 2.14, so that you can add/remove quick launch items
there. Unfortunately, that's only currently accessible by right-
clicking the Launch menu, which is v. poor. And the editor is built
into the panel code AFAIK, so because it's not a separate
application, I don't know how easy it might be to add a "Menu Editor"
item for it to the Launch menu.
> APPLICATIONS MENU
> - I understand the importance of accessibility. Yet, it always
> bothers me that it is the first thing on the list. I'm routinely
> ending up in it when I wanted to be in Accessories. I don't know if
> this is Windows muscle memory, or just that both start with
> "Access" and so it takes me a moment to notice I'm going to the
> wrong one. (given that these are more 'how do I get my system
> working' kinds of things, I'd expect them more in the system tools
> area).
I'd agree this is kind of annoying... we've considered calling it
"Universal Access" in the past to get around this, but of course
that's locale specific. I'd be happy to relocate them, but it was
the accessibility team who wanted them in their own menu, so they'd
probably have to agree to that too.
> ACCESSORIES
> - IMO, shipping an app which doesn't work in many cases seems
> undesirable.
> - To me, archive manager, pda synchronization and maybe even
> character map seem like utilities, not lightweight quick apps. See
> my comment about admin tools, below.
>
> INTERNET
> - Personally, I've never been comfortable with the "internet"
> category. Personally, I don't think of apps as "internet apps" or
> not. But, like developer/programmer, I don't know at this level of
> detail whether users will understand this or even care.
>
> OFFICE
> - I'm overjoyed to find Acrobat Reader and Evince stuff in some
> office/productivity apps section!
>
> SOUND AND VIDEO
> - Alluding to the point above in the Accessories menu, many of the
> things here seem like they're system configuration/management/
> preferences kinds of things. Audio control, maybe CD Database
> Server, volume control, recording level monitor, volume monitor all
> don't seem like "applications" to me.
> - I share a bit of your concern about video stuff... but that may
> be just because the names are so generic... Though, I suppose
> someone will assume "Java Media Player" is just for playing Java-
> related media, whatever that is. :-)
>
> SYSTEM TOOLS
> - I don't quite understand the distinction between System Tools and
> Administration (and, given some of the things in this list,
> Preferences). When I've got my administrator hat on, the Windows
> division of some sys admin tools into Control Panels -> Performance
> -> Admin Tools (or whatever it is called) and some in the
> Accessories menu drives me batty. I'm sure if I were a
> professional admin I'd have memorized which is which, but as I'm
> not it seems random which goes where. I'm concerned you'll be
> doing the same thing here.
I'd agree this is probably the biggest source of confusion in the
current proposal.
Having thought about it a bit more, I think all these things probably
break down into:
- Settings that affect only your desktop environment, independent
of the
computer you're logged into, e.g. background, fonts,
(networked) printers.
- Applications or settings that affect a specific computer (or
something attached to it) for all users who log into it, e.g. disk
partitions, services, network configuration.
and possibly:
- Settings that affect all users' desktop environments,
independent of the computer
they're logged into
but I can't think of any examples of that last one at the moment,
other than setting system-wide gconf defaults.
Does that sound like a clearer delineation? If so, what would you
call those categories?
> USERNAME
> - I'm a bit surprised to see Computer in here. Same with the
> Network servers. How is this "Computer" different than the one in
> the main menu?
Sorry, that was a typo... Computer shouldn't be in there, it should
only be in the top level.
Have to admit I'm a little unclear about what should really go
here... it was Frank Ludolph who suggested the 'username' menu. His
original suggestion was that it should just contain all the folders
in your home directory, or some sanitized version thereof. However,
that leaves all the Bookmark and Network Places stuff that's on the
community's "Places" menu (which Frank didn't really like, hence his
Username suggestion) with nowhere else to go, unless we keep a Places
menu as well.
This also relates to the "should we still emphasise the Documents
folder over the Home folder everywhere" debate. Frank's suggestion
that we introduce "username" as a synonym for "Home" has its merits,
but also its problems-- there's no guarantee that a user's home
directory will be the same as their username (a prime example being
that root's home directory is often "/" rather than "/root").
> Also, Maybe it is because the rest of this menu is shared by all
> users but each user gets their own set of network servers?
Yes, that's pretty much the case... apart from Desktop, Documents and
CD/DVD creator, the menu is just a list of the user's bookmarked
folders/mounts/network locations, plus the means to add to those.
> - Not sure what to make of CD/DVD Creator... Not sure what the
> overall interaction is once I've chosen it.
It opens a special file manager window into which you can drag files
to be burned to CD/DVD. The window has a "Burn to CD" button you
click when you're finished. Much like a Burn folder in OSX, except
you can't have more than one of them, or choose where to store it.
> PREFERENCES
> - Why is "About me" not "About (username)"?
Good question... just lifted this one straight from the community.
About <username> would make more sense I think.
> OTHER
> - Is there a dire need to have network status on the panel? It's
> blinking bothers me and some other folks I've talked to. :-(
No, I'm happy to remove it. Although the 2.14 version blinks a great
deal less noticeably than our JDS3 version.
> So, there are my comments. To summarize my main points:
> - I think a different organization of system tools and
> administration and other "utilities" (and possibly preferences?)
> would be beneficial.
> - The stuff in the "user" menu surprised me.
> - I'd like to see real app names rather than generic names more often.
> - A more Windows XP-ish launch menu would probably be beneficial
> for user muscle memory and our seeming more modern.
Great, thanks. I'll make the more obvious changes today, and await
your thoughts (or those of anyone else who's read this far) on the
other comments I've made in this reply.
Cheeri,
Calum.
--
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:calum.benson at sun.com Java Desktop System Team
http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771
Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems
