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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: General KDE Usability
From:       Ra1n <pk20it () yahoo ! it>
Date:       2004-07-14 9:58:05
Message-ID: 40F503AD.3040407 () yahoo ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Segedunum wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:53:47, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> 
>>What do others think about this ?
>>Currently there is the web browser profile and the file management profile
>>on kicker.
>>Now I also think having the "select your konqy profile"-button on kicker
>>would be a good idea.
>>This would make three buttons for konqy.
> 
> 
> No, don't do that. With all of the profiles think of what usage it will have - 
> how will a user think about it? "I need to do web browsing" - web browsing 
> profile. "I need to handle my files" - file manager profile. They are the two 
> main profiles, and will need to have different toolbars, menus and 
> Settings... menus - but all providing a consistent method of browsing. 
> Everything should be familiar between profiles, even though they may provide 
> focused functionality.
> 
> This has the potential to be pretty damn good (that's a severe 
> understatement), but also for providing a mess of different profiles, none of 
> which a user can really decide upon. It could be much worse than what we have 
> now. Let's try and avoid that. What significance would "Select your Profile" 
> have in terms of the functions a user wanted to perform?
> 
> More advanced stuff might be "I need to manage my stuff via FTP" - FTP 
> profile. "I want to browse the network" - network browser. This could be put 
> away in a convenient place so that users aren't bombarded with ten dozen 
> profiles. I would use all of these profiles, but I wouldn't want to see them 
> all by default when I first started with KDE - I'd customize, because I'm a 
> power user. If you want a profile in there then you add it.
> 
> Please bear in mind that the "I want to...." statements I've got above are 
> what a user will be thinking - what actions they want to perform. They are 
> not a model for the names of the links these Konqui profiles should have! 
> Good usability means not being insulting.
Uoa! finally a good suggestion, I think too that konqueror must work 
like a chameleon :-D and focus on the functionality choosen by the user, 
this could be done automagically, for example by protcol, or by 
content(partially konqueror acts like this by now, think of embedded 
text editor) so if a user opens a website konqueror changes his menus, 
toolbars and layout in order to be a webbrowser, and changes again if a 
user opens a local directory(or a remote one, ftp is not too different 
from file management) the interface remains coherent even if the program 
  is doing different jobs (for example the preferences menu is in the 
same place even if it shows different options related to the job)
> 
> 
>>I'm not sure if one of the two default buttons could/should be removed.
>>But I'm quite sure not many people will find the new button if we don't put
>>it on kicker by default.
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't do it like that. Put the two most used profiles, web browsing 
> and file browsing, in there *prominently* - and do them well. The technology 
> you're describing could then provide an awesome basis for providing different 
> views depending on what a user wants to do, as I've described above. That's 
> good usability. You provide the functions users will want to do immediately, 
> but you do not restrict them at all if they want and need to have additional 
> browsing capabilities and you give them those capabilities. If people want 
> more then they can create their own views because the technology allows that. 
> Who said usability meant no power features?
Yes, the main icons in kicker must remain, it's the same program,yes, 
but in two different context, the user is aware of that, but he knows 
that is doing two different things, and if someone wants something 
different he could simply change that
> 
> I have a number of, pretty simple, ideas for improving the usability of 
> Konqueror as a file browser. The buttons on the side of Konqueror are a good 
> way of adding useful functionality, but some of the stuff you would use 
> together is split up. Your home directory, devices and the network are a few 
> such examples, because just about everyone is going to copy files to and from 
> their Home folder, floppies, CDs, drives and the network. Fitts' Law again. 
> Common stuff needs to be together. I can already browse my network files, and 
> stuff on my devices real, really well with KDE through the file dialogues. 
> People should be able to do the same with the Konqueror file manager.
> 
> The side bar in Konqueror is a good idea, but I haven't thought of enough 
> ideas for managing it better yet apart, from moving some of the most used 
> stuff around.
see my mockup on kde-look: 
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=14353

> 
> 
>>I also hacked on a kicker button which opens a menu delayed (like in konqy,
>>kmail, konsole, etc.), but most people were against this, so I didn't
>>commit. This would have given us the chance to add to both konqy buttons
>>the menu with profiles.
> 
> 
> This is really great technology, but try and channel it into how people would 
> use it. Also, bear in mind that what we're describing here is something that 
> has never really been achieved on any desktop with any browser.
> 
right, if is not successfull you could simply turn back to the old behaviour

Luca
_______________________________________________
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]