Re: [Usability] Evolution 2.0

[Roberto Rosselli Del Turco <rosselli ling unipi it>]

Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
> > 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).
>
>
> There is no such thing as a "perfect UI".

Which is why I put the word perfect between "" (perhaps you missed them).

> > 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".
>
>
> No, those are not shortcut bars, those are normal list widgets.  They
> have a standard scrollbar, and they don't have animated sliding groups. 
> I suggest that you go have a look at Evolution's shortcut bar to see
> what I mean.

Semantics again: nowhere in my mail I suggested that they are the same 
thing, I just disputed your notion of this GUI element being unknown in 
the GNOME world (at least in its basic appearance).

> > In the mail mockup image I counted 42 gadgets (not counting the 
>
>
> If you count every single widget as a "gadget" then yeah, there are a
> lot of them.  Go figure.  ;-)

Glad you finally noticed :)

> I'd like to know which parts you think are redundant instead of just
> saying "it looks crowded" though.

I suggest that you re-read my mails carefully (hint: what's that I want 
to move in the launcher?) and/or have a look at my other mail.

> > 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.
>
>
> I like the GNOME 2.0 philosophy too, but I have trouble understanding
> what parts of this design make it non-GNOMEish according to you.

Sigh ... it's not a *single* part per se disturbing me, it's throwing it 
all together that makes it very complex and less usable than it could 
be. I don't know how to say that in simpler words, perhaps we could move 
this to a personal exchange in italian?

> > 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.
>
>
> I am not saying that, I am just saying that you have been saying left
> and right how much this design sucks, but you haven't explained exactly
> what sucks about it.  ;-)

See above.

> > 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.).
>
>
> You seem to have a false assumption here: i.e. that splitting it up into
> separate apps will automatically reduce the clutter manyfold.
>
> That is not the case: the only thing that the one-window integration
> adds is the component switcher at the bottom.  All the other widgets can
> exist or not, independently of that basic decision.
>
> Of course, one can argue about whether the integrated UI makes sense or
> not, and whether the buttons are the right way or not, but the
> integrated UI is not necessarily a reason for clutter.

I am not following your logic at all here: IF the integrated UI forces 
you to add more buttons/stuff, THEN it adds more clutter. As simple as 
that. No way you can get away with this simple conditional statement.

To sum up my thoughts about the future UI:

* you can simplify the proposed UI a lot by (re)moving the "navigation 
buttons" because a) you remove a frame from the main window b) you 
remove the buttons in that frame c) you remove the switch button on top 
left;

* true, you can/should also simplify it by moving elsewhere some 
elements (see my mockups);

* the 6 buttons cluster looks dated to me (subjective impression);

* having the separate apps open in separate windows would let the user 
drag'n'drop and/or cut and paste stuff from one to another, which is 
very convenient IMHO;

* OTOH, having all of them together also means that menus and toolbars 
change every time you switch, which, as repeatedly stated on the 
usability list (see the Nautilus views thread, for instance), is bad on 
the usability level. Again, forcing an integrated UI on the user IMHO 
has serious drawbacks.

Hope I made myself clear.

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)