Re: Synchronizing WAS [Re: [Usability] The ``Replace File'' dialog should display the two]



Am Dienstag, den 09.08.2005, 20:57 +0100 schrieb Joachim Noreiko:
> --- Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org> wrote:
> 
> > In general, we have two ways of dealing with
> > conflicts
> > a) "collect" all conflicts and - after copying the
> > rest of the files -
> > provide an UI for resolving them [1]
> > b) stop at the first conflict, but offer an UI for
> > setting how to deal
> > with this and future conflicts
> 
> I would say there is a third way:
> 
> c) check for conflicts before performing any file
> operations, and ask the user for decisions on the
> conflicts first (and as with b, offer a UI that can
> potentially deal with all future conflicts)

Excellent idea! I didn't even think about it, although it offers totally
new ways of dealing with conflicts, like:

* prefix all moved files with: [ bla-2005 ]

I think my second mockup [1] fits very nicely with this, plus having
renaming/prefix functionality. Diego offered an inline editing proposal
[2], but I don't find it completely convincing yet. I've tried something
similar for the (now dead) gnome-menu-editor, which allowed to modify
the name of applications menu items in the application list and Calum
and me agreed that it feels uncomfortable without any obvious trigger.
To be honest, I think the rename knob just looks too obvious. It simply
takes away too much space for such an uncommon action. I think you very
often either want replace all, rename all or cancel.

> I think this is desirable for several reasons:

> (recoverability of undesired moves)
> (unexpected prompt while away from keyboard)

Yup. Both of it seem to be pretty important. I think we can keep the
mid-transfer dialog pretty small then, if not even keep the current,
since it is very likely to be only shown if very "uncommon" things
happen, i.e. doing transfers and modifying the target through another
operation, adding exactly equally-named files. I know, this can happen
as well, and we could keep around a hash table of pending transfers and
such, but if only 2% of users need it I don't think it's worth the pain
for now.

> Hello everyone by the way :)

Hi :)

[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-August/msg00029.html
[2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-August/msg00033.html

-- 
Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]