From: "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I find the biggest hurdle is how to get from here to there.
the intuitive part.
Yes the UI is data centric, not human centric. There are not much ergonomy concerns so far in OFBiz. But as we all now, all is
there, ready to be disclosed.
How to do it is another thing. Remember that the 1st aim of OFBiz UI is to
demonstrate OFBiz features...
This has been discussed enough times that I'm surprised it is still coming up...
It's not a matter of data-centric versus human-centric, it's a matter of
data-centric versus process-centric and role-centric.
The most important principle to keep in mind is that in order to make something easier to use you must simplify it, or in other
words you must remove as much functionality as possible, or in other words add as many constraints and assumptions as possible. In
other words, you give up flexibility for the sake of simplicity (which may or may not help usability). Another important principle
is that design for low-frequency use and high-frequency use are very different things (in other words you design differently for
things people do rarely and things people do frequently, trading initial ease of use for efficiency over time).
I totally agree. I also remember this fine idea I read one day of having different dynamic UI levels. From newbie to expert with as
much as intermediate levels as needed. This is not so hard to achieve (using a preference menu) but I have seen only a handful of
softwares designed that way. OFBiz OOTB could use this idea, using preferences in my page for instance ...
The base applications in OFBiz are data-centric and intentionally inclusive. They are meant to be flexible and complete, and are
not generally designed for one specific activity or another. To use OOTB people will require training, and over time people may
also have to tolerate moving between various screens in order to complete an activity.
Yes, but users often prefer the intuitive way of doing things (MS DOS vs MAC for an history reference). You can't change them so you
have to adapt. This does not mean to adapt OFBiz OOTB of course...
I remember we had a similar discussion about date-time representation. We mostly agree that a sortable format is better, but from
international users POVs it's not the same...
The original idea discussed behind specialpurpose applications (which has only loosely been followed) is to write applications
that are designs for specific activities and processes. In order to do this those activities and processes should be defined
first.
Yes I see, like it's done in Len Silverston's book volume 2 (that's a good
example to remember)
What is really happening there is that things go there when they aren't sure where else to put them. For the applications that are
derived from the base applications there seems to be more incremental attempts at creating something useful rather than a process
of gather requirements, design according to those requirements, and then implement according to the design.
I guess people (I included) will claim it's a lack of time, but often future
shows it was rather short viewed.
"Nécessité fait loi" (I can't find a better expression to summarize. In English
: Necessity knows no laws)
Jacques
-David
