Guillaume Lerouge wrote: > Hi, > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We should make a standard and follow it on other aspects too. >> >> The same discussion is for the pagination: do you show the prev link? yes >> you do, and it's disabled. But the user know that a Prev action can be done >> and he knows it's possition. >> >> The same aspect is for menus too - if I don't have Edit rights - should I >> see the edit link? >> >> These remarks are very correct: >> >>> Actually, Marius suggested that we keep the "invalid" buttons hidden (but >>> without changing the positions of the displayed buttons), for the >> following >>> reasons: >>> 1/ the interface should be as light as possible, we shouldn't crowd the >>> interface with buttons that the user can never push >>> 2/ disabled buttons can be a little confusing, the user wouldn't know if >>> there >>> is something he needs to do to enable those buttons. >> >> But if you have the icons/links/buttons disabled: >> A. the users knows the possible actions are there and doesn't need to still >> look for them in the interface; >> B. when the finishing / editing step will occur and will be possible, the >> user will know where to look for it, because he seen it before. >> C. the buttons don't disappear and appear like crazy. This is good also for >> the designer - he can align the controls and the other sibling elements >> don't blink from left to right. > > > I'm really afraid of C) -> buttons appearing and disappearing for no > specific reason (from the user point of view). A button that was there is no > longer there -> how comes? > > Plus the standard practice in all wizards we've looked at with Caty was to > have all buttons displayed all the time... I guess if hiding buttons from > one part of the form to the next was a good practice we would have found a > UX blog talking about it by now (we didn't).
I think I've seen some minimal wizards, with only the usable buttons in. > > So I'm afraid we're going against a standard and re-inventing new stuff just > for the sake of it, with no proven value at the end of the line. People are > not (yet) accustomed to form buttons magically appearing and I don't want > our project managers to be the ones who will have to explain our users that > "yes, our developers liked hide-and-seek buttons best so that's what we > implemented" ;-) It's not magically or chaotically, it's matching what the user can do: you have only a button therefore the only thing you can click and could ever click is that button, I think it makes it simple. Now the *only* good reason I find for showing disabled buttons is to actually make it obvious for the user that it's a process in multiple steps (it's a wizard, everybody knows Previous and Next means wizard), not make him believe that clicking the only visible button in the first form will get the job done and then have the surprise of another step appearing and so on. Make it clear from the very beginning what is he doing there (you have multiple steps to take, at one point you'll be able to "Insert X", you do have a previous button and will be able to return at this step if you mess up something). Thanks, Anca > > Guillaume > > >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
