Confirmed users
1,016
edits
User:Gandalf/About:Config: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
* [pkasting] I have a lot of questions about this mockup: | * [pkasting] I have a lot of questions about this mockup: | ||
** What's the difference between "search" and "filter"? Are these orthogonal, or can the be made into one widget? | ** What's the difference between "search" and "filter"? Are these orthogonal, or can the be made into one widget? | ||
*** ''Search is searching through pref names, id's and descriptions. Filter just filters (incremental) the result list of prefs.[gandalf]'' | |||
** Some sorting/grouping of options is already exposed by their names ("foo.bar.baz"). Why not expose a tree view based on these (a la the window registry)? | ** Some sorting/grouping of options is already exposed by their names ("foo.bar.baz"). Why not expose a tree view based on these (a la the window registry)? | ||
*** ''Because it would require a lot more clicking, while the grouping names would stay confusing (I prefer to have a tree on the left with names, than to have a tree in result with ids) [gandalf]'' | |||
** Are the category buttons on the left really going to be usable? I can think of two use cases for about:config: | ** Are the category buttons on the left really going to be usable? I can think of two use cases for about:config: | ||
*** I'm trying to change a particular single option (because a friend or web page told me to or whatever). I don't care what category it's in, I just want the option itself. Something like the current "filter" box is the most useful to me here (or incremental find). | *** I'm trying to change a particular single option (because a friend or web page told me to or whatever). I don't care what category it's in, I just want the option itself. Something like the current "filter" box is the most useful to me here (or incremental find). | ||
*** I'm the sort of curious user who pokes through everything, so I want to peer through all the options and read their descriptions. The categories aren't really useful to me here either, since I'll need to go through all of them. | *** I'm the sort of curious user who pokes through everything, so I want to peer through all the options and read their descriptions. The categories aren't really useful to me here either, since I'll need to go through all of them. | ||
**** ''Also, user may now what he does want, but not remember the pref name. (search and categories) And also, users may blindly look for the options related to sth (that's for search box). [gandalf]'' | |||
** Furthermore, some options may not be easily "categorizable" as they might affect, say, performance as well as user-experience and "the browser", or some other set of items that crosses whatever categories you can think of. Unless you want to allow options to be in multiple categories... in which case that might be confusing for a user. | ** Furthermore, some options may not be easily "categorizable" as they might affect, say, performance as well as user-experience and "the browser", or some other set of items that crosses whatever categories you can think of. Unless you want to allow options to be in multiple categories... in which case that might be confusing for a user. | ||
*** '' good point. We may leave them in "others" or outside of the main categories then. So they can be reachable via search only. [gandalf]'' | |||
** If you want something easily editable, why not stick each option's value into a textfield? Then users can simply edit it immediately if they want to, without any other UI. When the user hits enter or changes focus, validate the entry and complain (or do something smart) if it's not valid. | ** If you want something easily editable, why not stick each option's value into a textfield? Then users can simply edit it immediately if they want to, without any other UI. When the user hits enter or changes focus, validate the entry and complain (or do something smart) if it's not valid. | ||
*** '' I don't know if I can put a textbox/checkbox inside the tree cell in XUL, but that may solve it [gandalf]'' | |||
** Overall I guess I would say that working from the current UI, but changing to a treeview, allowing options to be more easily edited, and adding descriptions of all the items (visible at top/bottom for whatever item is selected) would go a long way toward addressing the shortcomings of about:config. Perhaps a few buttons (for adding/deleting an option, or editing one? maybe this is a better replacement for doubleclick than the textfield idea) at top would be good too. | ** Overall I guess I would say that working from the current UI, but changing to a treeview, allowing options to be more easily edited, and adding descriptions of all the items (visible at top/bottom for whatever item is selected) would go a long way toward addressing the shortcomings of about:config. Perhaps a few buttons (for adding/deleting an option, or editing one? maybe this is a better replacement for doubleclick than the textfield idea) at top would be good too. | ||