On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Reinier Balt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Like I said last night, overall, pretty great. Some minor comments: >> >> * really like spelling out the project name instead of the old [P]! I >> see now that this is a preference and has been for some time, but >> frankly, don't see why this should be a preference; see, e.g., >> http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch06_Avoid_Preferences.php >> > > Very true what is said in the article and I agree. But I also like the last > paragraph which is I think relevant for this: "Make the call > Make simple decisions on behalf of your customers. [..] > Yes, you might make a bad call. But so what. If you do, people > will complain and tell you about it. As always, you can adjust. > Getting Real is all about being able to change on the fly." > > IIRC, there were a lot of strong opinions on [p] versus full project > name... > > (btw, I will complain when [p] is removed, since I use long project > names :-) )
Choice is never easy :) If you're looking for a good compromise for long project names, you could ellipsize after a certain number of chars and then give the full name on mouseover? that would still be more informative than [p] without causing things to overflow. >> * the recurring actions stuff could be streamlined a bit. Definitely >> suggest taking a look at how google calendar does it. Even if you >> choose to keep it a separate screen instead of integrating it with the > > Currently, the gui follows the implementation which is a bad thing. From > your comments and others, the gui should be better. I do like the way > google calendar handles it, so that could be good inspiration. I really > wanted feedback from users on what is good and what isn't. Besides that, > I was focusing on getting the implementation right with all the nice > corner cases :-) Yeah, implementation of this stuff is hard (vague memories of debugging it in evolution...) >> *think* you mean that the date of the recurrence is either the date it >> is due or the date it comes out of the tickler (with no due date) but >> it is not clear from the current language. If that is what happens, >> I'll try to think of cleaner language. > > Please do. You got the semantics right. Hard problem even for a native English speaker and someone who thinks about UI a fair bit. I'd suggest 'Set recurrence on'->'Repeating date is:' that ties 'date' in the label to 'date' in each description, makes it a little more clear. More generally, I'd suggest that recur->repeat just about everywhere in the UI. Not sure that this is great, but best I can suggest right now. >> * why is the recurrence themed differently from everything else? >> Consistency would be nice. > > Do you mean the overlay? Or the white form? Or both? I think I mean both, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by the overlay. Luis _______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
