GNOME.org
 

Re: [Usability] Evolution 2.0

Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
* don't be afraid to innovate! (at least on the conceptual level :) I was quite disappointed to notice the similarities between the proposed mockups and Entourage (or whatever is it's name, links on Footnotes). Why always follow? Let's try something new! 


UIs should not be judged based on whether they are too similar to a
previous UI or not.  ;-)
I fully agree: if there was a "perfect" UI as visible in a similar program, I'd say go ahead and clone it shamelessly. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case (all wishes for innovation put aside). 


We just think this design makes a lot of sense, and in fact most of the
users on the list welcomed it as a good change.
Then go ahead, by all means. You asked for feedback, I gave you mine. I hope you didn't really think 100% of the people was going to be happy with the first mockup of a new UI. I just happen to be one of those nit-picking guys ;)
As a result, you have too many gadgets and things in a single window, and the UI is something you have to *learn* before you can actually start using the program. 

(...)
* getting rid of the shortcut list in exchange for a cluster of buttons doesn't look good to me, because: 


I am confused.  First you suggest getting rid of some of the stuff in
the window and say that the UI is too different from the standard; then
you propose adding back another cluster of buttons with semantics that
are completely different from those of any other application in the
GNOME world (i.e. the shortcut bar)?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I don't remember suggesting getting rid of stuff or talking about "standards". Anyway, you're wrong in saying that the shortcut bar is "completely different from those of any other application in the GNOME world": apart from some applications using it in the main window (quite rare, admittedly, I can only think of Rhythmbox at the moment) it's widely used in preferences windows, even if you don't call it "shortcut bar".
My point wasn't on "simplifying by getting rid of [X]" but on "simplifying by separating". If you noticed, I wouldn't like Evolution to have reduced functionality in future versions. 


The design we are going after is quite bare bones.  It just boils down
to:

      * Menu bar
      * Tool bar
      * Navigation area
      * View

Which seems pretty standard to me.
A menu with four items looks standard (whatever the meaning you give to this adjective at this time) and really really simple to me too :) The mockup tells a different story, though. 


It is not really as crowded as you make it sound; the additional buttons
to switch components are just part of the navigation area (as they
should be) and take barely any space.  (The icons in the mockups are a
bit large, so we might shrink those down...  But besides that, they only
take a handful of pixels in the corner of the window).
In the mail mockup image I counted 42 gadgets (not counting the different mails you can open, of course), three bars (menu, main, status), some items aligned together in a "loose" bar (view switcher, search criteria drop down gadget, search text field, search icon), somthing that looks like a progress bar in the bottom left corner, two list frames (mail folders, mail messages), one text view (mail text, split between header and main text) and a cluster of buttons (mail, contacts, calendar, tasks, news, summary; BTW, I don't see how you can call this a "navigation area", where are the hints to "navigation"?). To this I will merrily add the menu items I counted on the Evolution 1.4 installation on my Linux box: 138 if I'm not wrong, not counting the different character codes (too lazy :).
Now, I'll grant you that the layout is quite neat (hi Anna!) and that the menus will be simplified according to the HIG in the new UI, but doesn't all of the above qualify as, say, "mildly crowded" at least? how long will it take for a beginner to feel at ease with Evolution 2.0?
About GNOME integration: the problem is not in a GNOME "standard", but in a GNOME "feeling". If I open Evolution next to other major GNOME 2 apps, I don't really feel they share the same "founding principles", I actually am reminded of Konqueror (and I don't mean it in a disparagingly manner, far from it, it's just an opposite philosophy).
This is all IMHO, of course. I'm one of those converts from GNOME 1.4, who just happened to learn to love GNOME 2.0 "less is more" philosophy. 


[shortcuts]


	- you lose functionality (custom shortcuts to preferred folders);

	- it's a step backward on the UI level (and quite unelegant);



It's definitely not a step backward at a UI level -- on the contrary, it
simplifies the conceptual model and gets rid of a widget with a
completely custom behavior.
This is again a very subjective idea of mine, namely that the times when it was enough to put half a dozen buttons side by side to have a nice GUI are over. It would be better to have tabs instead IMHO, a guy on Slashdot put up a mockup with tabs instead of buttons, have a look.
* getting rid of the summary is also a pity, as it's not only a nice gadget for power users, but also a way to see at a glance how many new mails they've got, the tasks for the day, etc. 


The summary in the current form needs some rethinking, most people don't
even use it.  Also it adds complexity to the application: it has it's
own node, it's own configuration, etc.

We are also trying to reduce the amount of code that we have to maintain
(because the burden is just too large for the number of people who are
working on it at the moment) so the summary is a good first candidate
for sacking.

If you feel the summary as an integrate piece is so important, then
maybe you are not as against a unified UI as you want to sound.  :-)
Heh, my time to be puzzled now :) My proposal was to make of the summary something very different from what it is now, a simple launcher for the different apps (and a means to avoid putting a shortcut bar for every view) which also happens to give basic informations about personal stuff ("You have xx unread mails, yy labeled important", "You have a meeting at 16.00", and the like), nothing more. Then again, I don't know jack about Evolution's internals, so it could well be that what I see as a "simple launcher" could be a burden to code and/or maintain :)
The "most people don't even use it" would deserve further consideration: how did you arrive to this conclusion? Since you mentioned consensus on the list, note that on the gnomedesktop thread many people declared their disappointment about sacking the summary.
I am also puzzled that you replied to sparse parts of my email without answering the central item, i.e. the "different apps in different windows" idea. If you think that Evolution has to remain a fully integrated, one-window-only application, well that's it, my ideas are inapplicable. 


2. DO build a new, ergonomic UI for each application;



It would be interesting to see what you think this ergonomic UI would be
like.  Saying "build an ergonomic UI" is easy.  :-)
Well, I'm quite disappointed by this last remark. Sounds a bit too much like the good old "either put up the code or shut up", hope this is not what you meant.
You will have to admit, though, that following the GNOME 2 "less is more" philosophy (I might also quote the old Unix maxim "one program good at doing just one thing), it would be much easier to create a simple and effective UI for the mail app, one for the calendar etc., at the same time preserving the integration between apps through well known mechanisms (drag'n'drop, quick switching/launching of the other apps, etc.). It just doesn't have to happen inside the same window, that's it: this is Outlook's UI legacy IMHO, take into consideration the idea of getting rid of it.
I have been following the development and trying all major versions of Evolution from the early public beta times (I've been reading the dev ml for a while, too), and I think it's great, especially on technical grounds (a friend of mine has a mail database with *thousands* of emails, and he's hooked), but for some reasons I could never make the switch, especially after I installed GNOME 2, the UI being the main one. So, pardon me if I cultivate some hopes to see it change :) 

Ciao

--
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco      e-mail:	rosselli at cisi.unito.it
Dipartimento di Scienze			rosselli at ling.unipi.it
del Linguaggio			Then spoke the thunder	DA
Universita' di Torino		Datta: what have we given?  (TSE)

  Hige sceal the heardra,     heorte the cenre,
  mod sceal the mare,       the ure maegen litlath.  (Maldon 312-3)
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]