-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Hundhammer wrote: > After reading so many dozens of utterly off-topic posts in the first thread I > gave up. >
<snip> > > Rather, it was about > > The YaST Control Center > > in particular the Qt version. > This is the small, very basic, Qt-only (very little dependencies, in > particular not to the entire YaST engine) application that starts YaST > modules. Some people call it the YaST shell. Currently, it looks like this: > > http://en.opensuse.org/Image:YaST_Control_Center.png > > And THIS is what we want to change. THIS is what we want a radical new > approach (or, at minimum, a radical new look). > > > So please, let's start over and PLEASE let's focus on the topic. We think > community input is important. We think some of you out there might have a > really great idea how we could do this control center thingy better. > > > We identified a number of problems with that old control center: > > (1) There are too many icons in there - way more that can easily be navigated. > IBMs original CUA spec did define some still useful guidelines, e.g. one should not have navigate down more than three levels in a menu, a menu should be all on the display area etc. The really hard part is not the GUI design, it is the dialogue structure and design, and the semantics of the terms to be used. For a tool it is not how pretty a thing is it is more about how functional a thing is. Tabbing at the display window might be a good option as it offers a potential broad bottom base and would not alter what has been a highly successful layout too drastically. i.e menu switches through tab views displaying icon based windows, related to the tabs.. The problems really is not so much the number of entries on display but defining how to get to an entry in a meaningful manner. I think it needs to kept in mind that a change in cosmetic design that radically changes functionality is unlikely to be received well. This is a core tool ... so it also needs to be seen to improve functionality as well as visual appeal.. BTW I am one of the few that loathed the new(ish) KDE menu when I moved from 9.3 in 10.2 so I tend to have a rather conservative viewpoint on this... > (2) The groups don't always match users' expectations. > (E.g., is firewall more related to security or to network?) > Is there any reason it should not appear under both? A design rule which states that each item should only be accessed from one location is possibly a little restrictive. As stated people tend have different expectations of where something should be kept and although something appearing in more than view may superficially appear confusing it may help many, especially in cases where the multiple locations are valid... (a "favourites" view also might be useful so one can access the bits that one uses regularly easily). > (3) It's hard for newbies to figure out what does what. > > (3a) Sometimes it's hard to figure out the difference between modules. Documentation, documentation, and documentation... Improved links to documentation would be always be welcome. Too many modules offer unexplained options, and an individual can be expert at one thing but a complete tyro at something else so "one size fits all" is not useful... The documentation side window in modules while useful is often very thin on detail, and have to load a module to read the documentation can lead to problems... a "Tell me more" button/icon option of some sort might be of use at all levels (maybe one which on repeated selections increases information detail)... <OT on/> With apologies.... A possible idea outside of YCC proper could be to introduce something along the lines of R1 (an early expert system used by what was then DEC to stop sales persons accepting orders for unworkable equipment combinations and configure workable setups).. A question and answer dialogue could help a new and inexperienced user get a working setup or find which module they need to use by asking questions about what they want to do in terms of what they comprehend.. In effect, documentation with a little intelligence... <OT off/> The main weakness of a GUI icon based interface is that it generally does not handle complexity well on its own (on its own it is best for situations where you are trying to make complex things seem simple ), and here there is a complex thing with no easy way to make it appear simple... also for many, choice is also confusing, especially if they do not understand the options... the combination of the two issues is rarely a happy one.. It is very difficult to convey complex information comprehensibly purely with pictograms, so a method of icon based navigation with appropriate contextual text information is probably really what is required. (Optional info bar at bottom triggered by mouse location maybe, a little text could go a long way... ) > > (4) It's often enough hard for expert to find things. > covered in point 2) and 3) really... > (5) It's not exactly pretty. > > Does it have to be?... eye candy is often distracting and not really needed for a tool to do a job and can cause problems for people with visual problems, (and after all I have yet to see a plumber use a wrench with a ribbon tied around it) :-) If someone really wants to offer eye candy, I would suggest incorporating some sort of theme support... All it needs to be is functional, neat and tidy, it being absolutely clear what you need to do to navigate and having routes to find things which cover a wide range of expectations and a good description of those things when you find them... <snip> > Failing that, maybe somebody has a good idea how to present the modules > traditionally in an icon view, but in a way that does not overwhelm everybody > when the window opens (the "show all at once" approach) or that leaves the > user searching for the right module at most times (the icon groups or even > icon tree approach). > > This is what that was all about. This is what we ask your opinions for. > > > CU Unfortunately, if you ask and open ended question one tends to get an open ended response :-) - -- ============================================================================== I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. Bjarne Stroustrup ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHSwcyasN0sSnLmgIRAl3aAKCO243IaCaomtHrY0sndonyI9Yo5ACdFUFV MPkIZw1ISevjDBB2Ow1fk3Q= =/EEB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
