Re: [Usability] Re: Suggestion for the actual UI of GTK+'s NewFileSelector

["Eugenia Loli-Queru" <eloli hotmail com>]

I honestly do not see the big deal for this window not be more long
horizontally because this is usually the shape most preference panels have,
so it is not like it came from another planet or something.
I personally believe that the current design is intuitive and follows a
logical order of doing things. Please read towards the bottom of my article,
I just added three new paragraphs explaining a bit more of the logic that
led me to this kind of design.

> One obvious problem is that if a user expands the window vertically,
> it's not clear which area will get the extra space

Indeed. However with the shortcut list being on top and having both columns
and rows, it might be a good decision to take this: Resize the file
selection area for vertical window resizes and resize both when doing
horizontal resizing. And of course more shortcuts will be shown if a user
resizes the shortcut area using the seperator. In the vertical shortcut
listing as in Erick's and Tigert's, the list will only be benefit from
vertical resizes. My suggestion can benefit from both.

Please read the update on the article for more.

Rgds,
Eugenia


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shaun McCance" <shaunm gnome org>
To: "Eugenia Loli-Queru" <eloli hotmail com>
Cc: <desktop-devel-list gnome org>; <gtk-devel-list gnome org>;
<usability gnome org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Usability] Re: Suggestion for the actual UI of GTK+'s
NewFileSelector


> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 21:02, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> > >They don't resemble standard buttons, afterall.
> >
> > Additional work (like highlighting a border when onmouseovering to them)
can
> > be done to them to show that these are buttons.
> >
> > >Second, this view doesn't leave much room to put user-specified
favorite
> > locations.
> >
> > Sure it does. It is the same as in the original or Erick's mockups. You
just
> > drag something there and the system places it alphabetically  (or not)
to
> > the list. If there are too many, a scrollbar will be shown, and the user
can
> > always resize that view. Fundamendally, the shortcut view is the exact
same
> > and has the same features as the vertical one. Maybe it is just not as
> > apparent in my mockup as I filled up the currently viewable area with
> > shortcuts.
> >
> > >I really like the button navigation scheme used to quickly jump to
paths.
> >
> > Indeed this is a must-have... :)
> >
> > >The part I have trouble getting used to is the aspect ratio of the
window.
> >
> > You are not alone. :D
> > However, I believe that it is mostly a "getting used to" thing because
> > currently users have experience with 4:3 file selectors on other OSes.
>
> I'm no UI expert, but I do know what makes a pleasing document layout,
> and many of the same principles apply.  Any window with a list will
> often benefit from more vertical space.  Since you can't necessarily
> anticipate how long the list will be, your designs should accomodate
> some amount of vertical resizing.
>
> I expect a lot of users will often resize vertically to see more files.
> However, the locations list in your mockup might also benefit from more
> vertical space for some users.  While horizontal space will also give
> more items, the payoff is bigger with vertical space, since you'll get
> more items with fewer pixels.
>
> One obvious problem is that if a user expands the window vertically,
> it's not clear which area will get the extra space.  Either way isn't
> going to be what the user wants all the time, so people will end up
> resizing the window and then having to drag the separator, which is
> annoying.
>
> My more fundamental problem with the layout is the ratio of the window
> size.  With this design, window ratios of 2:1 or even 3:1 aren't very
> difficult to imagine, since vertical resizing will be more common than
> horizontal.  With a more horizontally-oriented window (such as Erick's)
> you have much more room to resize vertically while staying inside of
> reasonable window proportions.
>
> These ratios aren't just something we've gotten used to on other OSes.
> The golden ratio (~1.6:1) has been used for centuries in all types of
> design.  We find it aesthetically pleasing, and always have.  Not every
> rectangle in every design uses this ratio, but it's very rare to use
> proportions that are very much more unbalanced.  I doubt you have very
> many books that have a ratio of more than about 1.5:1.
>
> This design all but forces a tall verical column, which is aesthetically
> unpleasing and difficult to scan visually.
>
> --
> Shaun
>
>
>