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

List:       kde-bugs-dist
Subject:    [Bug 109581] [USABILITY] Control center module is unintuitative
From:       ieure () debian ! org
Date:       2005-07-31 21:38:52
Message-ID: 20050731213852.28410.qmail () ktown ! kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109581         




------- Additional Comments From ieure debian org  2005-07-31 23:38 -------
"[Problems] 
 > Network configs in tabs are unintuitative: 
 >  - For users who only need 1-2 networks, there's extra, useless stuff shown. 
 >  - Doesn't cope with users who need >4 networks (#102193) 
 
These two are already solved in the current SVN: the user can set how many configs he would \
like to see in a range of 1-10. (See comment #5 of the bug report you mentioned... that's why I \
marked it RESOLVED/FIXED)"

I haven't checked this out, but if it's just a spinbox with 'number of configs,' that's not \
sufficient or intuitative.


" >  - There's no clear seperation between the global and network-specific 
 > configuration. 
 
 I used to think the separation is that the network-specific ones are in the tab widget with a \
big border around it and the global ones aren't. They are below. Of course, binding the \
interface to theglobal part is wrong (see below)."

Right - but that's not enough. Generally, when you select a tab, the entire visible area \
changes, and borders are often used to group related elements in a single pane. Even as an \
experienced user, I had to fill in some values and switch tabs to see what changed. The average \
user will be hopelessly confused by this interface.


" >  - 'Config N' conveys no information about the network to the user, making 
 > the tabs very confusing. 
 
 This is true, but I don't know what to do against it. There are situations where the SSID is \
identical, but settings below are different (PM, or a different set of keys). If I'd call the \
configs after the SSID, they might not be unique any more."

Read my suggestions below - I provided suggested solutions for every problem I identified.

In this case, it was a list of network configs with icons for speed/crypto, which should be \
enough to identify which config is what.  

" >  - Tabs are very hard to use once the number of tabs exceeds the horizontal 
 > space available. 
 
 True. But what to do about it?"

Dump tabs in favor of showing configs in a listbox, like I suggested.
 

" > - Inconsistent use of checkboxes in network config: 
 >   - For 'Execute script on connect,' the control is enabled; for all others, 
 > a button which leads to the actual controls. 
 
 Yes, this is not good. I might change that so that the same mechanism as for PM and WEP is \
used."

That's fine. I'd prefer to see everything on the same page, but the lack of consistency is the \
main problem.  

" > - Bad prioritization of options in network config: 
 >   - Very few users will need 'Execute script on connect,' but many will need 
 > PM/WEP configuration. 
 
 Really? I _never_ used PM myself. And execute scrip on connect is a _very_ handy thing if you \
want to call "dhcpcd wlan0" or similar."

Right - but think of the Average User. They are much more likely to want to set up PM (with a \
nice GUI) than trigger scripts.

I'm not saying that scripts on connect isn't handy, just that Average User won't know what to \
do with it, and they will be more likely to understand and want power management.  

" > - WEP config dialog defaults to hex key entry: 
 >   - Most users will want string entry. 
 
 Then most users are stup^Z not very aware of security problems. The key space for brute \
forcing a network gets so much bigger if you use hex keys... Of course, there are cases where \
you need to use strings, namely when you use Win XP SP2, which (stupidly) doesn't allow hex key \
entry. But even then you can use multiple keys on your AP. I'd be cautious about qualifying \
statements like "most people will want that"."

WEP is flawed in many more important ways than string keyspace. But the fact of the matter is, \
most users are going to use string keys, because most people can't memorize hex digits. I don't \
think a GUI for network configuration is the place to mitigate the risks of WEP.

Show me an average user who can memorize a single string of hex digits, much less four, and \
I'll be glad to retract my statement.  

" >   - No clear format for the hex; are colons used? How many digits are needed? > Also, you \
can enter non-hex values in the field.   
 3.5 has an updated documentation that tells you the format. How many digits are needed depends \
on the encryption strength in your network. I tried to validate if the input is valid hex, but \
there were problems with doing this properly (see if it can be converted into a unsigned long \
long) and I had to postpone it. It is on my agenda though.   BTW: current SVN detects \
automatically if you are using hey or string, and warns about unknown entries."

You shouldn't need documentation to learn the format - the whole point of a GUI is that stuff \
like that should be obvious.  

" > - Power Mgmt. settings are only applied on a per-network basis. If you want 
 > to use PM for all configurations, you have to set up each one, which is 
 > repetitative and unnecessary. 
 
 When I look at your suggestions below, they describe a very complicated way of either doing \
this per-network or global. I think this confuses people quite a bit. And using different \
profiles on a per-network basis seems to make sense for me, say if you are at work and have \
your laptop plugged in but when visiting a customer you don't."

That's fine. This is clearly a wishlist item, but there are definite scenarios where I want PM \
or no PM on a per-network basis. E.g. home, no PM, coffee shop network, I want PM.  


 [Suggestions] 
 > - Split the config into two sections; network-specific, and global config. 
 
 This is the case (see above), just the interface selector is in the global section, which is \
not good. I will correct that for KDE 4."

You didn't read the rest of my suggestions. They're meant to be taken as a whole.
 
" > Network config should have a list, which displays the network name (ESSID), 
 > with an icon/color to represent if the network is open or encrypted. Just the 
 > open/closed lock, with a green background for WEP networks would do, similar 
 > to how Konqueror represents SSL sites. 
 
 Well, in order to detect whether a network is encrypted or not, a network scan needs to be \
done. This in turn interrupts connectivity to the current network. And there are cards that \
can't even scan."

No - this is for the list of configured networks, not detected networks. If you select crypto \
for a specific config, it appears in the list with a locked lock icon, otherwise you get an \
unlocked lock.


" > An indicator for the current 
 > network(s) is also essential. Perhaps also an icon to represent the speed of 
 > the network. To the right, 'New,' 'Properties,' and 'Delete' buttons. 
 > Selecting a network and clicking 'Properties,' or double-clicking an entry in 
 > the list would bring up a properties dialog for that network. Also, an 
 > up/down control to prioritize networks would be handy (I'm about to file a 
 > bug on that, but it's clearly a wishlist item.) 
 
 Why only does this remind me of the Win XP style? Prioritization is a very good idea, but it \
needs to be done properly (Win XP is _not_ proper, and fails under certain circumstances). I \
will try to get this into KDE 4 as well."

No idea. If you're suggesting that I'm trying to make KDE/KWifiManager more like Windows, \
you're wrong. I've been a Linux-exclusive user since '97 or so, and I've been running KDE for \
most of that time. Consequently, I haven't the slightest idea how Windows XP (or any other \
version) configures it's networks. This is just common-sense stuff, and things I've gleaned \
from designing UIs myself.

 
" > - Global settings should include power management settings. 
 > - 'Power management' in network props. should also be a pulldown. It should 
 > default to 'Global settings,' but have a 'Custom' option for per-network PM 
 > settings. As with the WEP config, the controls should be present on the 
 > network props dialog, but disabled until 'Custom' is selected. 
 
 Huh? As said above, this seems very confusing to me. I don't think John Doe would intuitively \
know how to use this, and I think that's bloat."

That's fine. I want this functionality, but it's not essential.

" >- 'Channel' control should be added, and moved to the advanced controls tab. 
 
 I can't think of a single use case where the user would need to maually control the channel. \
Give me one, and I will consider putting that in. Otherwise, I again think that's bloat."

Fine.
 

" >- 'Auto' in 'Speed' pulldown should, perhaps, be changed to 'Fastest 
 > available' or 'Best Available.' It seems like a good idea to me, but may not 
 > be. 
 
 Hm, I like Auto. Sounds appealing to users who don't know what this is all about. And yours \
are both too long, IMO."

Fair enough. Like I said, it seems like it could be a good idea.

 
" > - 'Encryption' should be a pull-down, with 'None,' 'WEP' etc. The correct 
 > controls should be visible but disabled until the correct option is selected. 
 
 It was like that very long ago, but it made the widget look incredibly cluttered. KDE core \
develoeprs already thought about dumping the whole thing for usability reasons. The current \
version is completely redesigned (not by me, but someone who probably has more knowledge over \
UI design). So I don't think this is a very good idea.  
 > Or perhaps there should be separate tabs for WEP, WPA, WPA2 etc, which are 
 > disabled until the right option is selected. WEP key entry should default to 
 > strings, with an advanced dialog for hex key entry. Hex entry should have an 
 > appropriate number of 2-character input boxes, which only accept hex digits. 
 
 Well, this sounds sensible as soon as WPA and WPA2 are actually possible with KWiFiManager. Up \
to now, only None and WEP are supported, and so the layout as it is now is sufficient and easy \
to use."

Ok.
 

" > - 'Settings apply to interface' should be moved from the global settings to 
 > the per-network settings. Otherwise, it's impossible to set up two networks 
 > on the same machine. If the input is empty, it should act as if the user 
 > clicked 'Autodetect,' i.e. default to something reasonable instead of 
 > remaining empty. 
 
 As said above, you are completely right here. I will move it for KDE 4. You of course mean \
"two interfaces" instead of "two networks"."

Correct.
 

Thanks for


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