Hi, I can only second Anna Christinas thoughts, and I guess - or better I know from my few users - there are others who think that way.
best regards, Infoomatic > Gesendet: Freitag, 09. Januar 2015 um 11:33 Uhr > Von: "Anna Christina Naß" <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [SOGo] Themes SOGo > > Am 08.01.2015 22:04, schrieb Francis Lachapelle: > > Hallo, > > >>> The v2 theme hasn't changed for years. It's time to move on. > >> > >> I don't even want to know how much time we waste every year re-training > >> users because someone found it was necessary to "move on". I hope the v3 > >> design will be good enough to stay with us for a couple of years as well. > > > > I understand your concern. We hope the interfaces of v3 will last as long > > as the ones of v2. > > I still hope you will be providing a "classic" user interface that > follows the direction of the "good old-style paradigm", which is: > > - you really can SEE what a button is, because a button is something > that can be pressed and as such is elevated (we had "buttons" which > cannot be seen as such in Windows8 but also in the era of > black-and-white screens) > > - you can see what functions a software offers because the functions are > offered to the users -- and not hidden in ways like "this function is > only shown when you select something in exactly this way". This goes > against the direction of showing functions ONLY in a "context-sensitive" > way. Context-sensitive showing of functions is something for a > context-menu, which is available through the right mouse button-menu or > a "gear-wheel" menu. > > - you can distinguish icons by its *color* -- the human eye can really > distinguish between colors! Many software products and "web > applications" of todays time have grayscale icons which are only > distinguishable through their shape, not through their color. > But searching for the icon "with the red X in it" is so much easyier > than trying to find an icon wich may look "like a trashcan". > > >> None is too many, sometimes. Why do we need floating buttons now when we > >> just spent years training users to use the toolbars? > > > > I don't think the paradigm is far from the traditional toolbars. > > The goal is really to have an intuitive interface, simpler to use. > > I hope that this simpler does not mean the same as the Windows8-like or > Apple-like "simpler", which does only mean "uglier" and "harder to use". > > You have to notice that many users really use this kind of software on a > daily basis, so it is not necessary to dumb-down the software or its UI. > > Many users have learned for over 20 years now how to use a user > interface which is based on menus, toolbars, lists, real buttons etc. > > Please do not throw away this knowledge just for "being modern". > > >> That's just my observations with recent "UX improvements" from > >> Google/Microsoft/random webapps copying their styles – or rather, the > >> main things my users complain about to me. It takes too long to identify > >> interactive elements (due to the "everything must be flat and there > >> can't be any elevated elements" craze – Material isn't the worst > >> offender here, thankfully), and when they do, the elements randomly > >> disappear because users try to reach them from a slightly different > >> context, like in Firefox' and Office 2013's context dependant context > >> menus – Firefox doesn't even show keyboard shortcuts any more, so while > >> they still exist, the average user wouldn't know how to look them up. > > > > Flat design as it was initially proposed had weaknesses. > > Apple and other software companies have adjusted their user > > interfaces since then. > > We'll do our best to not repeat those errors. > > Then PLEASE PLEASE offer an additional "classic style" theme with > elevated, really-look-as-if-you-can-click-on-it buttons, real toolbars > etc. which does not pop up new things every now and then out of nowhere > and which does not use half of the screen for oversized headers (like > Google Material Design does. > > By the way, just compare the old and new look of the GMail app on > Android (Old Android Design vs. "Material Design"): > http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/6/005/073/2ac/2ffbebe.jpg > > The old interface shows more content and more information on the same > screen -- and the content is not overlapped with some "create new" > bubble. Also the "menu bar" offers more functions than now. Also it was > easyier to distinguish between two messages because of a darker line > between them. > Just an example... > > >> As long as the shiney new presentation doesn't impact productivity, I > >> won't mind. But far too many recent re-designs sacrificed usability to > >> be more impressive in presentations, and I'm more than a bit wary of > >> them by now. > > > > We are totally aware that SOGo is a productivity tool and needs a very good > > usability. > > I hope so. > > On one system, I have to work with Office2010, I still have problems > finding some functions thanks to the "Ribbon" design. When using > LibreOffice, which respects the users preference for real menus, it is > easier for me to find functions and options. Just another example. > > Kind regards, > Anna Christina Naß > > -- [email protected] https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
