Great to see this topic going again. In the original proposal to address the real estate issue a dockable toolbox, similar to Visio, was proposed.
Perhaps it would help us to do various UI mockup proposals. Rick On Nov 13, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I thought about that when I was writing my previous response. The concern there is the amount of 'clickable' space across each type of configurable component (not just processors) and how much precision would be required depending on the current scale of the canvas. Just don't want to make it more difficult by providing less real estate to click. But this wouldn't be a show stopper. However, we do already have double click mapped to Enter a Processor Group. So we wouldn't be able to use double click for configuring a Process Group. Not sure we want to introduce inconsistency in actions across the types of configurable components. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Petronic <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So, and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only concern/hesitation is around the behavior if the double click happens over the connection handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a connection by shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging thereafter the connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued with this idea we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior to avoid confusion. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most intuitive to a user. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases. I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator expected a Props screen. Oops!) Andrew From: Charlie Frasure <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread. (Maybe that's the idea.) I was looking through the archives before posting some usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in September. If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely. A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently assigned. Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop, configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice. The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well. Rob Moran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more intuitive way to quickly "configure" a connection when drawn. It could be a small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized configuration to take place.
