[KDE Usability] Re: Usability Questions for KDE Telepathy

[Thomas Richard]

I think a tooltip would definitely be a good idea.
It might also help to make the text a little grayish when an account is 
disabled. This would make it immediately obvious what the checkbox does when a 
user decides to click it.

Greetings
Thomas

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