Well, i for one really love the new API interface _ such a much less noisy interface than the docs.jquery.com interface! clearer, snappier. it turns out i don't use the navigation menu much, i use the filter box mostly. that's probably why i'm not so annoyed by its limits. really liked the interfacing with jsbin, yet i would like to be able to contribute with a comments system (like the awesome php doc, where people conribute snippets related to the php function displayed on that page). congratz Remy, and let us designers know if u need help !
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Remy Sharp <r...@leftlogic.com> wrote: > > I think the animation of menus is one for the options as well then. I > understand what you mean, once you're familiar with it, you just want > to get on with it. > > On Jan 15, 9:28 pm, Ricardo Tomasi <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Two things bother me more: >> >> - James' #3 point, that other categories hide when you click one, an >> accordion would be a better fit for quick navigation. >> - the subcategories. I like to see the method's names directly, >> deciding between "Hierarchy" or "Child filters" is not an intuitive >> task. They should be in a kind of tree with the subcategories as >> separators. >> >> These two things would speed up navigation a lot. As it is, it's quite >> interesting the first time, but gets irritating after a while. >> >> Thanks for this Remy, and long live JSBin! :) >> >> cheers, >> - ricardo >> >> On Jan 15, 6:35 pm, Remy Sharp <r...@leftlogic.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi James, >> >> > Thank you for your detailed feedback - all good points. >> >> > I want to push out another release when 1.3.1 goes live - so I'd like >> > to get some, if not all, of the feedback addressed (including others). >> >> > 1 + 2) almost the same thing - the first problem I see is the AIR >> > browser, which obviously doesn't have a back browser button (which >> > would be solved by your first point). This needs some UI input (which >> > I'll come on to in a minute). >> >> > 3) I've talked with Yehuda Katz, the original author of Visual jQuery, >> > about navigation interfaces - there's two options (as alternatives to >> > what I have now) that we talked about: tree nav and accordion. >> >> > Generally speaking, the tree navigation didn't take as well as the >> > Visual jQuery approach. An accordion (I think) would solve the issues >> > you've specifically mentioned, but would also solve some similar >> > feedback I've read, i.e. wanting to be able to scan a category whilst >> > maintaining some hierarchy. (note that you can do this - but it >> > doesn't quite solve the problem:http://api.jquery.com?category=attributes >> > ). >> >> > 4) Easy to solve - I didn't have access to a designer (I'm a coder >> > through and through) but a few simple tweaks to the CSS (I suspect) >> > should sort this out. >> >> > 5) I've had the same feedback, but both as a pro *and* as a con (as >> > you have) - so I was going to create an options area that would >> > maintain some certain settings - the focus opacity being one of them. >> >> > 6) This is common piece of feedback - and simply a technical block I >> > ran in to and ran out of time. Permalinks are my to priority right >> > now, I want people to link straight in to a specific function. I >> > won't be able to have the URL change as the user browses - but the >> > title of the function (and probably some other visual que, i.e. icon) >> > will give the user a permalink to the function. >> >> > I also want this to work for categories too, so: >> >> >http://api.jquery.com/attr-would show a list of all the matched >> > functions (alahttp://api.jquery.com/?attr) - but I'd like it if the >> > category hierarchy would also show in left sidebar. >> >> > In addition: >> >> >http://api.jquery.com/Core-would land open the Core category - and >> > so on through the subcategories. >> >> > I'd be more than happy if you contact me offline to lend a hand with >> > some of the UI changes required. >> >> > @Pappy - there's more I want to do with landing pages, but it's a >> > slightly more complicated job (given that, I think, 1.3.1 is supposed >> > to be going out next week) - but some fast view on all the functions >> > would be useful - I agree. >> >> > If there's more feedback - I'd love to hear it - particular the issues >> > people have. >> >> > Many thanks, >> >> > Remy. >> >> > On Jan 15, 4:22 am, James Van Dyke <jame...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Does anyone else find the new API browser to be a bit cumbersome? >> >> > > My gripes: >> >> > > 1) No "back" link at top of vertical navigation list. You must click >> > > the category to cancel your choice and essentially go back. However, >> > > this isn't very intuitive and there aren't any affordances to this >> > > behavior save for a small 'x' in the highlighted category box that >> > > doesn't do anything on hover or even have a tooltip. >> >> > > 2) The browser's back button is broken. Kind of a big annoyance when >> > > you're not used to the application. >> >> > > 3) Recovering from a mistake is more punishing than it should be. >> > > Clicking on a category hide the other categories. Since the title of >> > > the category moved from under your mouse, you now have to scan to the >> > > top of the list. Once you make sure you're in the category you meant >> > > to click on, but don't find the function you were looking for, you >> > > click the category name and wait as everything moves around, then >> > > repeat scanning through list again. A good example of this is trying >> > > to find an unfamiliar selector in the Selectors category. >> >> > > 4) Little distinction between categories, subcategories, and items. >> > > They're all the same color and categories and subcategories share the >> > > same faded 'x' icon. The only difference is that the category has bold >> > > text and the subcategory has a white line under the box, but not >> > > between it and its category. >> >> > > 5) When hovering over a list of options for a function (e.g., $.ajax) >> > > only the item you're hovering over has full opacity making the others >> > > hard to read. I'm ok with the distinction, but I think it's a little >> > > extreme. I found myself avoiding hovering over the list, which is >> > > hard since I tend to scan the page with my eyes as my mouse follows my >> > > line of sight. Try scrolling through the options for $.ajax while >> > > trying to read them. >> >> > > 6) The window title changes when viewing an item, which makes one >> > > think that the URL will map to that page. However, the URL does not >> > > change and I can't find a permanent link to paste to a co-worker. >> >> > > Don't get me wrong, I think Remy has made a great step towards a >> > > better API, but design efforts seem to have favored neat effects over >> > > human factors. I deal with a lot of these design issues at work so I >> > > tend to have a keen eye for these things and can be too picky at >> > > times. >> >> > > Has anyone else been bothered by this? If not, what do you like or >> > > what makes up for the negatives? Maybe we can compile a list of >> > > existing *good* things as well so that those features can be brought >> > > to the fore while the problems are resolved.
