I see your point. Well, consider my thoughts just input to the larger puzzle. Better to have well thought out UX than not. Nice to see you thinking hard about it. :)
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Matt Gilman <[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]> > 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]> >> 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]> >>> 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]> 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]> >>>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM >>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[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]> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
