Could we use a drag event for the connection action rather than a click event? That might help differentiate the two actions.
The inconsistency between double-clicking a process group and a process would be similar to the inconsistency between creating a connection and creating a process. A different object type might be ok to have a different behavior, especially seeing as a processor isn't a container of sub-objects. Opening a process group is intuitive to me; but I also have double-clicked on processors more times than I care to admit to, trying to get to the configuration screen. Take all this for whatever it's worth; I would actually prefer that connection objects don't go to the properties screen when they're created, but just connect from the first flow. A double-click would quickly get you in to modify as needed, but would "just work" when building the "happy path" for a file process. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Mark Petronic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
