Re: UI Refresh

Le 27/11/2019 à 03:18, Michael Terry a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, at 18:56, Mathieu Jourdan wrote:
On first backups, the Storage locations screen is not consistent with
the list-everywhere approach.

Yeah. I couldn’t find clear advice in the HIG for preferences. Looking at the current Settings app, there 
are not many examples of text entry using the list style (which we want for folder / URL etc).

Seems like they pop up a mini dialog with old style label+entry when they need to ask for text questions.

But if you can find a good example of that done right in the list style, I’d copy the design.

Unfortunately there is no example I am aware of :/

Also, I remark there is nothing asked about schedule?

For the first backup, I didn’t think it was necessary? I figured we’d just turn on auto backup if the first 
backup finishes successfully.

It seems unnecessary indeed!

One of the biggest painpoints currently is that there is no way to tell
from the backup window if a backup is running or not. How would you
solve this? I think the modal appearing on the mockups woul present the
same issues as of today?

This has gotten a bit better in recent Deja Dup releases. If there is an existing operation, its modal 
dialog is shown if you open Deja Dup.


I was planning to keep that going. Alternatively, I’d be happy with an in-app solution. I don’t know how 
important detailed feedback & resuming vs cancelling are. But those are the features to balance

If I understand well, to exclude a file from backup, she would have to
"add" it to the "included files", and the turn the button off? Seems not
really straghtforward to me.

That’s fair. I liked the idea of having the standard locations that you could turn off and on. Wasn’t sure 
how best to add custom includes / excludes into that mix.

Any ideas there or do you think the standard location items  aren’t worth it?

Rough thoughts below.

I think part of the difficulty may reside in mixing two different
1. based on content type (ie, "I want to backup my documents and
pictures and videos")
2. based on file hierarchy (ie, "I want to backup all my personal data
of any kind but not these specific folders")

With the first logic, the user wouldn't even have to exclude anything,
because that's implicit. With the second logic however, the only way to
perform an exhaustive backup would be to offer to pick up only
one folder to include. The user would then explicitly exclude any
subfolder she knows for sure a loss would be harmless.

My feeling is that those two approaches don't mix well together.

For what it's worth two years ago I sent to the list a couple of mockups

It's approach has similarities with yours, and tried to offer some
goodies: offer to "verify a backups" to avoid the user feeling at risk
to erase some valid and recent data with older backups. And of course a
loooooong-requested feature :D

I’m sorry! I see that I never replied to you. 😞

Well, I'm annoyed because I know you usually take care of responding :p

Yeah some of the same ideas for sure. Separate prefs. Browsing as a restore method. 

I like your count of how long the operation has been running.

Unfortunately, we can’t integrate with Settings (though we used to - but they now discourage that and it 
doesn’t work in a containerized world anyway).

Didn't think of that. Too bad :(

Multiple profiles & a visible “verify” option are features I’m cool on. But that’s a different conversation 
than a UI refresh.


Prettier than our current UI for sure.

More observations on the refresh… I'm not sure how well the view
switcher would work:
- on the "backups" view, I would expect to find existing backups
- "restore" is an action, not a type of content
- having both a back button and a view switcher in the header bar
feels a bit awkward to me


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]