A quick question/comment. Wasn't Windows file selector criticized for taking the folder/file views and combining them into one widget? http://digilander.libero.it/chiediloapippo/Engineering/iarchitect/file95.htm Could you do a mockup with split folder and file widgets? Bob On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 20:20, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Bob Smith <bob thestuff net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part