[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: ui redesign for konqueror settings
From:       Dik Takken <D.H.J.Takken () phys ! uu ! nl>
Date:       2004-02-08 15:38:40
Message-ID: Pine.OSF.4.58.0402081606150.187190 () ruunat ! phys ! uu ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Roland Seuhs wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 08. Februar 2004 12:54 schrieb Dik Takken:
> > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Tom Karasek wrote:
> > 
> > > hi,
> > > 
> > > this is my first post here. i've made a quick ui-redesign for the konqueror
> > > config (not following the standards - i simply did not think about it before)
> > > here: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=10590 , because
> > > configuring this thing is really painful... ;-)
> > 
> > For new users, it's a very scary configuration jungle, yes. Many new users
> > don't want to touch it.
> 
> On what facts do you base that claim?

On my own experience watching newbie users as they use KDE. What I see is
that they are not touching it unless they have to. And if they do, often
they can't find what they are looking for.

> > I really like your design, especially the front page. It looks very clear
> > and simple.
> 
> That's true, it pushes the complexity to another level instead of dealing with it. \
> Of course the subwindows don't look very clear and simple at all.

That's exactly what you need to do in order to make it accessible to
anyone. Most users never need to dig deep into the configuration options
and never reach the complex dialogs that are crammed with widgets.

What do you mean with 'dealing with complexity'? It's a fact that
konqueror has many configuration options. I am very greatful that it does.
You can 'deal' with this in two ways. Either you reduce complexity by
removing options, or you make the most used options easily accessible and
put the rest after a 'advanced' button.

> However this "approach" only makes matters worse, not better, because:
> 
> - Instead of one window with many options you have a main window and 4 \
> subwindows/popups with many options. "Which windows did I search already" and "In \
> which window am I currently" are a whole category of *NEWLY INTRODUCED* problems \
> that currently just don't exist.

 You are correct about the fact that a "window spawning a subwindow
spawning another subwindow" is not a good idea. But I don't see how this
new approach has to end up in a jungle of config windows. You don't have
to do that.

> - Currently it is possible to search all settings systematically, from top to \
> bottom. That way you can make a full configuration the first time you configure \
> Konueror easily. It's also very effective when searching for an option because you \
> can do so systematically and know what parts you have already looked at.

 If you need to search for an option, you already know that there is
something wrong with the way they are organised.

> - It would break the whole kconfig design philosophy which would introduce \
> inconsistency

Please explain.

> - It makes it needlessly complicated to change a setting if you know where it is. \
> For example, to change a Java-setting 
> 	Currently:
> 	1)Click on Java-settings
> 	2)Change settings
> 	3)Click OK
> 
> 	This suggestion:
> 	1)Click on web-browser settings
> 	2)Click on Java-settings tab
> 	3)Change settings
> 	4)Click OK
> 	5)Click OK again (?)

Alright, maybe you need one or two extra clicks. But hey, do you change
your java settings twice a day??

If it is true that this new approach is more friendly to new users, I
think you and I can sacrifice a few mouseclicks for that, don't you think?

> 	I fail to see any problem with the current design, it's almost as easy as possible \
> and this suggestion is clear change to the worse.

I agree. For me personally, the current config dialog is OK. I know where
everything is, I can find whatever I need. But this discussion is not
about you and me, but about the inexperienced user.

> > I think one of the main reasons why the front page is good is that
> > the widget-density is low and you use a lot of supporting graphics.

> That's strange because all icons were *removed* except for 4 and in general icons \
> were replaced by tabs so I only see a reduction in supporting graphics.

Sorry, that was not what I meant. I mean that the use of graphics for the
purpose of easy recognition of the right option is much better. Choosing
between 3 or 4 icons is much faster and easier than choosing between 17
icons. It is even worse when some of the icons used are
very similar or even identical, like the current config dialog. Read any
book about GUI design and the first thing you learn is not to confront
your user with more than 6 or 7 options to choose from at once.

Cheers,

Dik
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]