[KDE Usability] Re: Usability Questions for KDE Telepathy

Wed Feb 2 00:54:53 CET 2011

I had an alternate plan.
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".

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Thomas Richard <thomas9999 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> KDE-Telepathy mailing list
> KDE-Telepathy at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-telepathy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-telepathy/attachments/20110201/2aceecdb/attachment.htm 