On Thu, 30 May 2002, Sebastian Sp�th wrote: > Come on, let's stop this discussion. It really leads nowhere and is of > really no importance anyway.
Sure, I have no qualms with anyone here (.. yet :). I'm just trying to get Freenet usage more user friendly. > None of the active developers seems inclined to go through the hazzle of > dividing the 5 configuration pages onto 10 (btw I hate IE's > configuration dialog) just to make it fit fully onto really old screens. IMO 5 configuration pages is way too much for the clueless users. And for the record, I hate IE settings dialog too, but it's still better than Freenet's one. > If you have such an old screen, simply use an texteditor and config the > .ini file yourself. I do it all the time. Any advanced settings should be hidden from clueless users in first place. > But because I am a nice guy, I'll rationally explain to you why I think > IE's dialog is shitty: I think myself nice guy too which is why I bothered to answer to your reply. If I weren't, I would just ignored it as potential flamebait. > - As Drunken Dave(tm) (SCNR) already pointed you cannot grab that IE > dialog with the right button and drag it around as well, so that leaves > it with a) smaller dialogs and b) the help button thingy Drag the dialog around? Is my Windows 2000 install somehow flawed because I can only get a context menu opened on IE settings window from right mouse button.. That context menu has an option (among others) called "What's this?" which brings the same help popup as the questionmark icon. > a) Smaller dialogs: Do you really think 10 configuration tabs would be > nice to navigate through? All apps which use two or three rows of tabs > for config dialogs did something wrong in my eyes. I concur. > one advanced page where all the really important stuff is just listed > with radiobuttons in a very long, flat, confusing list. Do you prefer > that as a superior design? Obviously IE designers (or marketing) figured out wrong what the most used settings would be after default install (though most default settings in MS apps are either insecure or unusable..). > b) The help button to save space because you can remove the help texts > from the page: Save space, less clutter, more logical for the masses and experts. > Did you ever (besides for the screenshot you took) actually click on > these things, when not *really* forced to? Yes I have, they're nice to have for _reference_, but they don't supersede proper seperate help documentation. > I venture to say that for the very same mysterious reasons why "users > don't read documentation(tm)" And that's why any options which might break the application for first time users should be hidden sufficiently. > they do not click on this little question > mark, just in order to get the help text for a certain setting. If users want real help, they should refer to the documentation. The help popups would only be there for reference. > And if something is crucial for users to know, you simply have to stick > it directly in their face (my experience, YMMV). Then the config program should open up a window with the crucial info before letting the user to fiddle with the settings (or ask the user if he's novice or expert and change the dialogs based on that). > Besides we already have a help button. It leads to an ridiculous empty > help page. How about contributing content to that help page instead of > complaining about dialog designs :-)? I'm not complaining anything, I'm just sharing ideas what one could use to develop the UI to be more intuitive. > > Times have changed, ... > Darn, why come I feel so old everytime I read this sentence. Maybe you should try embracing the new generation of computer users and making the apps work for them, not just for the actual developers. -Tumu, this weeks UI advocatist. _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
