Hi Jonathan, Nice work so far. Here are my initial thoughts.
1) I find it a bit confusing that there is an explicit ignore checkbox for the 3rd party ones, but not for our own. 2) I'm not sure I understand why UI Options isn't considered interactive. 3) I like how the interface doesn't feel as big as the current one. Thanks Justin On 2011-01-31, at 4:42 PM, Jonathan Hung wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thanks to those of you who took the time to respond with their feedback! > After some informal user testing and based on your comments, I've made some > modifications to the way exclusions and dependencies were being handled. > > If a user excluded component A, and then selected component B, it's possible > that component A would become selected again (because A is a dependent of B) > even though it was expressly excluded. This interaction gets more complicated > as more items are chosen for download as multiple excluded items can become > included again. > > To help alleviate this confusion, the user's action of excluding an item is > now completely separate from the dependency selection process through the > introduction of an "Ignore this item" function. This way the user can express > their desire to exclude an item from the download package by activating the > "Ignore" option, and be confident that their preference will remain > throughout their interaction. > > Attached is an illustration of how this would work. The diagram shows what > would happen if the user had selected Inline Edit, Progress, and Reorderer, > and excluded Infusion Framework Core, jQuery, and the JSON parser from the > download package. > > Other changes to the design include changes to wording and adjustments to the > layout. > > > Please take a look at the image and let me know your thoughts. > > - Jonathan. > > --- > Jonathan Hung / [email protected] > IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher > Tel: (416) 977-6000 x3959 > Fax: (416) 977-9844 > > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Cheetham, Anastasia <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jon, > > I like how you've provided the feedback that a de-selected module is required > in two placed: both near the module in question and near the download button. > > It might be helpful for users to understand the implications of going ahead > with the download anyways. Perhaps near the download button, an extra phrase > or two? something like "If you proceed with this download, you may be missing > some functionality. If you expect to be able to provide it yourself (e.g. if > you already have a copy of jQuery), then you should be ok." > > Separate thought: The warning on the de-selected module says "Required by > current selection." I wonder if it would be a) helpful and b) feasible to > actually specify which parts of the current selection require it. For > example, next to the JSON parser module, it could say "Required by > Reorderer." This might be quite helpful, but it also might be verbose in some > cases, and it wouldn't be entirely straightforward to implement. > > -- > Anastasia Cheetham Inclusive Design Research Centre > [email protected] Inclusive Design Institute > OCAD University > > > <Builder-rev2-with-Ignore.png>_______________________________________________________ > 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
