[openbeos] Re: BeOS/Haiku UI question

Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:37:24 
+0100
> > This is really something the UI guidlines should cover, I don't 
> > think Be 
> > ever actually produced any (their newsletter archive has a lot of 
> > talk 
> > about them being in progress).
> 
> Hm. Personally, I'd rather spend the time and energy on having a full 
> fledged 
> layout management than writing UI guidelines. It is somehow dull to 
> have UI 
> guidelines but make it so hard to even have font-sensitive UIs.

Maybe there is no need to reinvent the wheel. I suddenly recalled that 
someone was working on an OpenBeOS HIG, and looked for it on the web. 
This is what I found:

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5571&limit=no#184515

It would be interesting to know the status of this document. Even if 
this is unfinished work, it would be nice if the author was willing to 
disclose it (hint! hint!), even in draft form, so that others can 
contribute towards finalizing it. This is would be a good thing to 
have. :-)

> > For me BeOS is primarily about responsiveness. That basically means 
> > settings should be instantly applied as they are changed. Not many 
> > BeOS 
> > pref panels have a "Default" button and I'm not sure they're 
> > particularly 
> > useful - if the settings are applied instantly the user can test 
> > and 
> > "Revert" to the previous ones (which would be the default on the 
> > first 
> > opening of the settings panel anyway). Complicated settings panels 
> > that 
> > require more testing from the user about whether or not it's a good 
> > choice 
> > could have a button to set defaults I suppose - but if the user can 
> > make 
> > things so bad by changing the settings that a defaults button is 
> > required 
> > then maybe the question of "why are we actually presenting this as 
> > an 
> > option to the user?" should be asked.
> 
> A "Defaults" button is more for taking the user by the hand. It's 
> like 
> saying, "no matter what you change here - you cannot mess up, you can 
> always 
> return to the defaults". So a Defaults button is in a way an 
> invitation to 
> even mess with the settings in the first place... :-)

Remember: users can and will mess things up, even without an 
invitation. :-)

> > Settings that obviously can't be applied in real time (screen prefs 
> > and 
> > others) should have an "Apply" button.
> > 
> > I think the normal close button should just do that - close the 
> > window. The 
> > next time I opened the window I would expect it to be in exactly 
> > the same 
> > state as when I closed it.
> 
> I'm kind of with you on this, even though I think Koki wanted to save 
> the 
> user the trouble of clicking twice to close the window. While that 
> sounds 
> like a good idea in general, sometimes there is value to "keeping 
> things 
> simple". By that I mean that the user has to think less, "Apply" and 
> the 
> Close button each performing just one thing.

My question is: why make the user click twice, when the same thing can 
be accomplished with one click? That is not my idea of simplicity, but 
it may be just me... :-)

Of course the Close button performs only one thing: closing the window. 
But I think the question users will ask themselves is different: what 
does closing the window do to my settings? Have they been saved? Or 
have they been discarded? The answer is different depending on the 
situation, and I wonder if this is clear to the user or not. The fact 
that I made this post may be an indication that there may be different 
interpretations to this question.

> > The way I think about it, settings are always there determining how 
> > my 
> > computer works, whether or not I have a window open to show them to 
> > me. 
> > Thus I find the whole windows "Cancel" concept quite confusing - I 
> > don't 
> > actually want to "Cancel" my printer settings as I still want 
> > windows to 
> > know about the printer I had configured. What I actually want to do 
> > is 
> > "Revert" the settings to how they were before I started changing 
> > them and 
> > then close the window.

The "Cancel" label has a very specific meaning that clearly and 
unmistakenly reflects its effect (iow, there is no room for erronous 
interpretation). I do not see how its use can be confusing or make 
things complicated for the user.

O the other hand, I can see that not having a Cancel button may lead 
some (new?) users into thinking that the changes they made are 
discarded when they close a configuration window, which may not 
necessarily be the case. There is potential for confusion there.

> > Hence I'd go with a (Apply)/Revert/Close button selection. I really 
> > think 
> > from a conceptual point of view this is this best possible view of 
> > what the 
> > user can do with settings.
> 
> I agree.

I have concerns that it may not be clear to some what closing a window 
does (ie., does it save the changes? or does it discard them?). I think 
the Cancel button gives an easy and unmistakable way to resolve this 
concern, and therefore should not be left out altogether. But then, 
that's maybe just me... :-)

Cheers!

Jorge

Other related posts: