Dynamically changing GUIs in general [was Re: [Usability] xscreensaver UI update]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Karim Nassar wrote:

> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:35:22 -0700
> From: Karim Nassar <karim nassar acm org>
> To: Alexander Brausewetter <br absb de>
> Cc: usability gnome org, Boris Goldowsky <boris alum mit edu>
> Subject: Re: [Usability] xscreensaver UI update
>
> > > Since the checkboxes are gone, it looks like there would no longer be a
> > > way to select a set of screensavers to choose from randomly.  That would
> > > be a shame, in my opinion (my kids love that feature, of course, and
> > > seem to find the checkboxes reasonably usable).
> >
> > the checkboxes will appear if the "Display random screensavers" option
> > in advanced preferences is selected.
>
> (just my 2/5 nickel)

Look like a whole dollar to me, I was going to say something simliar  ;)

> This strikes me as odd that selecting an option in one window will make
> the checkboxes magically appear in another. Can't the random feature
> remain in the main window? It doesn't seem that advanced to me.

It is very rare that I've seen a user interface that changes dynamically
that I actually liked.

Items should not appear out of nowhere, they should be greyed out if
unavailable.  I'm reasonably sure the Gnome Guidelines mention this
concept a couple of times.

> The HIG says: "Clicking a check box should not affect the values of any
> other controls. It may sensitize, insensitize, hide or show other
> controls, however." (1) All GNOME pref dialogs (that I can recall) grey
> out the subfeatures until the main checkbox was selected. In two.jpg,
> you would grey out the subfeatures (change, sync) until the display
> option was selected.

If you want to have a dynamic user interface make damn sure it doesn't
look like exactly like a non-dynamic interface.

Adobe Photoshop and the GIMP can get away with reconfiguring the user
interface for Tool Options when a different tool is selected because they
do so in a consistent manner and the Toolbar and Pallette (respectively)
clearly deliniate the area which will be subject to change.

Notice also how many Preferences dialogs like those in Mozilla and Firefox
have a fixed list one one side and a clearly deliniated changable area on
the other side.

> Also, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to eliminate the tab
> from the main window, but I think that all advanced options could fit
> nicely in one window, instead of another tabbed window. The features are
> disparate enough that it will be difficult to come up with meaningful
> tab labels, so one will have to click them all anyway to explore.

There is a good reason I didn't want to comment on this thread until now.
I honestly don't think I have ever wanted to configure screen savers since
I started using Linux, randomly cycling through different screensavers is
such an elegantly simple solution and does exactly what screensavers are
supposed to do by avoiding the same patterns onscreen for any great length
of time.  Clearly I am not the target user of the Screensaver Preferences
dialog but my point is that anyone who even goes to the screensaver
preferences dialog will probably already be the kind of user that
expects flexibility and although I am sure their is room for improvement I
do not believe moving the tabs to a sub dialog is the right answer in
this case.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org
Abiword http://www.abisource.com
Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/