I had an alternate plan.<div>In the status text it says why you're not online. "Network Error", "Wrong password etc.", I was thinking of making this say "Account Disabled".<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Thomas Richard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas9999@gmail.com">thomas9999@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I think a tooltip would definitely be a good idea.<br>
It might also help to make the text a little grayish when an account is<br>
disabled. This would make it immediately obvious what the checkbox does when a<br>
user decides to click it.<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
<font color="#888888">Thomas<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Tuesday 01 February 2011 17:20:07 Martin Klapetek wrote:<br>
> I'd still like to point out the issue with checkboxes next to the accounts<br>
> in the accounts list (see background in screenshot [1]). There is no<br>
> indication, what are these for (I assume they're for enabling/disabling<br>
> that account, but average user might not and can get easily confused), so<br>
> I'd add some kind of information to them, column header might be great,<br>
> but it would have to be the whole row and that wouldn't look too good<br>
> IMHO. So probably a tooltip explaining what is it for. Another option is<br>
> to add a text right next to them, but this would introduce more UI<br>
> clutter.<br>
><br>
> So the tooltip seems to be the best solution. What do you think?<br>
><br>
> Marty<br>
><br>
><br>
> [1]<br>
> <a href="http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/sel" target="_blank">http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/sel</a><br>
> ect_protocol.png<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2011/2/1 David Edmundson <<a href="mailto:david@davidedmundson.co.uk">david@davidedmundson.co.uk</a>><br>
><br>
> > Here is our reply from the usability guys.<br>
> ><br>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
> > From: Aurélien Gâteau <<a href="mailto:agateau@kde.org">agateau@kde.org</a>><br>
> > Date: 2011/1/29<br>
> > Subject: [KDE Usability] Re: Usability Questions for KDE Telepathy<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:kde-usability@kde.org">kde-usability@kde.org</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > I finally took the time to look at your message and screenshots. Thanks<br>
> > for taking the time to produce detailed screenshots. See my comments<br>
> > below. [snip]<br>
> ><br>
> > > We have a wizard for setting up new accounts.<br>
> > > [1]<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/s" target="_blank">http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/s</a><br>
> > elect_protocol.png<br>
> ><br>
> > > The second page on here allows us to set up everything you need to set<br>
> > > up everything 90% of users will need to configure to set up an account<br>
> > > (username/password normally). This changes per protocol.<br>
> > > [2]<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/c" target="_blank">http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/c</a><br>
> > onfigure_jabber.png<br>
> ><br>
> > > From here I made a decision that all advanced settings (that most<br>
> > > people won't need to change (server addresses, ports, security, etc. )<br>
> > > should be<br>
> ><br>
> > an<br>
> ><br>
> > > entire page away to 'hide' them from the majority of users who won't<br>
> ><br>
> > care.<br>
> ><br>
> > > [3]<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/c" target="_blank">http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/c</a><br>
> > onfigure_jabber_advanced.png<br>
> ><br>
> > > Some protocols have several tabs of advanced options, others (such as<br>
> > > Facebook or IRC) have none, and as such have no "advanced button as<br>
> > > seen<br>
> ><br>
> > in<br>
> ><br>
> > > screenshot 2.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Issues:<br>
> > > * Is the 'overuse' of dialogs ok? If not what is a good solution?<br>
> ><br>
> > The only problematic dialog here IMO is the "Advanced" dialog. Is it<br>
> > possible to move its content either as an "Advanced" tab or to place it<br>
> > below the "Advanced" button, but keep it hidden until the user clicks<br>
> > this button?<br>
> ><br>
> > > * How can we solve the 'large whitespace' issue seen in screenshot 2?<br>
> ><br>
> > Do you have code which ensures the content of the list in screenshot 1<br>
> > is fully visible? That would explain why the wizard dialog is so tall.<br>
> ><br>
> > > ---<br>
> > ><br>
> > > We're also looking at, and not sure on a good way to do input<br>
> > > validation.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > There are two ways we're currently providing (or wanting to provide)<br>
> > > feedback on the validation state. We've developed a custom widget which<br>
> > > shows a star on the right when a field is required and the user hasn't<br>
> ><br>
> > typed<br>
> ><br>
> > > anything in the field. When the user starts typing, the star becomes a<br>
> ><br>
> > red<br>
> ><br>
> > > cross. This indicates that the provided value is not valid. When the<br>
> ><br>
> > value<br>
> ><br>
> > > gets valid, the red cross turns into a green check mark.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > The second widget to provide feedback to the user would be a red-isch<br>
> ><br>
> > error<br>
> ><br>
> > > message on top. The idea is (stolen) borrowed from the bluedevil<br>
> > > configuration dialog. They have the same box on top. This box would<br>
> ><br>
> > appear<br>
> ><br>
> > > if a user clicks OK and not every value is valid, or somethings else<br>
> > > goes wrong. With a meaningful error message that is of course.<br>
> > > Look at the screenshots validation1.png and validation2.png attached to<br>
> > > actually see the widgets. I know the placement of the validated line<br>
> > > edit<br>
> ><br>
> > is<br>
> ><br>
> > > not OK. It's just there to test. Of course, the text in the feedback<br>
> ><br>
> > widget<br>
> ><br>
> > > should say something meaningful instead of Creation failed.. We would<br>
> ><br>
> > like<br>
> ><br>
> > > to know if we are on the right track though, before we start<br>
> > > integrating these widgets.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > [4]<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/v" target="_blank">http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/v</a><br>
> > alidation1.png<br>
> ><br>
> > > [5]<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/v" target="_blank">http://static.davidedmundson.co.uk/accounts-kcm-pics/usability_review_1/v</a><br>
> > alidation2.png<br>
> ><br>
> > > The question we would like to ask about validation:<br>
> > > * Should we even give the user the opportunity to click the OK button<br>
> > > if<br>
> ><br>
> > not<br>
> ><br>
> > > all required values are valid, or should it be grayed out?<br>
> ><br>
> > Both approaches are valid. As long as the "field validity" indicators<br>
> > make it obvious that something is missing, I would personally go for<br>
> > graying out the OK button.<br>
> ><br>
> > > * Is it common to show the icons of the validation state on the right,<br>
> > > inside the line-edit?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > * Is there any way to improve all of this? We're not really sure about<br>
> ><br>
> > all<br>
> ><br>
> > > of this<br>
> ><br>
> > Using a star to denote a mandatory field is a common UI pattern on the<br>
> > Web. I think it is a good idea to use it here, but I have two concerns:<br>
> ><br>
> > - If the star becomes a red cross as soon as the user starts typing, I<br>
> > am afraid the user will interpret this change as an indication that he<br>
> > just made a mistake. I suggest always showing a red star (not the cross,<br>
> > because it is associated with "error", not with "mandatory") when the<br>
> > field is empty or wrong and turn it into the green check mark when the<br>
> > field is OK.<br>
> ><br>
> > - The icon looks a bit big inside the line edit. It would probably be<br>
> > nicer to show the widget on the right of the line edit.<br>
> ><br>
> > Your work looks promising, looking forward for it!<br>
> ><br>
> > Aurélien<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > kde-usability mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:kde-usability@kde.org">kde-usability@kde.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > KDE-Telepathy mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:KDE-Telepathy@kde.org">KDE-Telepathy@kde.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
KDE-Telepathy mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:KDE-Telepathy@kde.org">KDE-Telepathy@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>