Thanks for the quick feedback everyone! 1. I've already added the instructional text to the wireframe. 2. Remove the tags text. AC, you brought up some interesting points and it's a common stumbling block for editing tags. This is an inline edit demo, not a demo for tagging (which is a whole different design issue all together :).
Anyone else with thoughts? - Jonathan. --- Jonathan Hung / [email protected] <[email protected]> IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher Fax: (416) 977-9844 On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, James William Yoon <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > This design definitely improves the context of use--in fact, I imagine Floe > would make good use of inline edit for captioning images. > > > For some reason, one without explanation, I thought if we just had a Title >> and a Caption it would be even clearer. With less text, the user has fewer >> things to click on -- and tags can be confusing. For example, I could >> imagine an interface that allows only one tag to be entered per line, or >> tags separated by commas. It makes things more complicated, but maybe >> that's good? >> > > I think one of the primary purposes of the component demos is to teach the > use of the component, so I'm all for simpler designs. If and when we > redesign the integration demos, we can try for more intricate uses. > > Also, I don't think it's a bad thing to have instructions with this > particular design. We give what we can with visual cues, but inline edit is > still, in my mind, a relatively novel interaction. Even the pencil edit > button I suggested putting in probably isn't enough for many users--there's > no accepted convention for inline edit indicators. I wouldn't bet on all > internet users being familiar with it. > > So, +1 for both simplified component demo design and instructions on inline > edit. > > (let's just avoid writing "click the bold text to edit" in bold, ;)) > > James > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Jess Mitchell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> I quite like this iteration. >> >> My sense about your comment below is that since the only text in the demo >> is editable, the expected interaction is more clear. For some reason, one >> without explanation, I thought if we just had a Title and a Caption it would >> be even clearer. With less text, the user has fewer things to click on -- >> and tags can be confusing. For example, I could imagine an interface that >> allows only one tag to be entered per line, or tags separated by commas. It >> makes things more complicated, but maybe that's good? >> >> Jess >> >> >> On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jonathan Hung wrote: >> >> > I am not sure if instructional text is required, or if the visual cues >> are strong enough to convey to the user that fields are editable, and edits >> are undoable. >> >> _______________________________________________________ >> fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, >> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work >> > >
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
