The ribbon wasn't a big shift in that department.) So the Windows 3.x days where everything always had underlines and macOS-like right-justified keyboard keys were relatively fewer than the many years of push Alt to see keyboard stuff on Windows. (Not to mention, Windows stopped showing Menu keys by default way back in Windows 95, and even stopped showing some menus entirely unless Alt was pushed over the years. (For instance, Format Painter shows Ctrl+Shift+C and Ctrl+Shift+V as opposed to Alt+H,F,P.) Maybe silly to use the mouse to discover the fastest shortcut, but it's roughly the same discovery process as classic menus. In addition to the Alt bubble pop ups, hovering every ribbon command has always provided a tooltip with command name and description and in that tooltip has always shown the most direct shortcut key in bold if there is one. Yes, that sort of still exists, but you have to go out of your way to do something extra to see it: these days you have to tap a modifier key while in the focus area of the menu. > What I loved most about the seriously ancient UIs, way back in the Win 3.x days and forward, was that not only were the options categorized, they also had prominently displayed (right justified instead of left) the keyboard shortcut you could memorize if you knew you were doing it frequently. It's very much a graphical "pull" menu in the classic sense in that mode and the two-step Alt+ shortcuts might feel a lot more understandable/close-to-home in that context, as it is just like menu bars have always worked (Alt+E,C or Alt,E,C for Edit > Copy as opposed to Alt+H,C or Alt,H,C for Home > Copy and in Office the old menu shortcuts still work to this day if you have muscle memory of them, you just don't get visual feedback). The ribbon has always been collapsible / "auto-hidable" to just a menu bar (double-click the active tab admittedly not entirely easily discoverable). > I think I would mind //graphical menus// less than the change to an always in your face ribbon. For all that I know, there is a super common case for "-group" without "-owner", and this is just me not knowing about it. If I were trying to do a popular product, I'd have to spend some time asking people / looking at the forums to determine which sets of features do people use. this was just my subjective design, based on how I use the program. Most of the time, first three options would be fine, but "custom" will show entire new group of checkboxes. A good design might have a dropdown: "everything", "nothing", "x-bit only", "custom". This will decrease cognitive load because there are less things to read and there is no need to worry what happens if you check both.Īnother great GUI feature is dynamicity - take the metadata for example. There is a very wide variety of input elements, so checkboxes are are not the right solution all the time! For example, while having separate "-verbose" and "-quiet" options is fine for CLI, one would expect to see a drop-down or a slider in the GUI. Having "hardlinks" all the way on the left and "symlinks" all the way on the right does not make a good GUI. One area of the screen would be options related to what is transferred, a second area is metadata, the third one is speed-only optimizations, fourth is logging and so on. There should be some sort of logical grouping. This is the hard part about GUI design - it is pretty easy to make a list of 100 command-line options listed alphabetically on the man page, but for GUIs, people expect much more. Is it better to make up common rsync “recipes” for people to use, or is it better to let folks have access to ALL of the flags and pick’n’mix what they want?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |