Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Nuzum wrote on 28/05/08 15:27: > ... > > of the dialogue to the left of the close button and the "undo" button > > should be in the toolbar or drop down menu. > >... > > [1] Example button placement: > htt

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

Matthew Nuzum wrote on 28/05/08 15:27: >... > I propose a change to the interface guidelines that _suggest_ a > "revert" or "undo" button be added to dialogues that affect user > changes instantly (which is the common way now). >... > In either case, the "revert" or "undo" button on dialogues shoul

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On 28 May 2008, at 15:27, Matthew Nuzum wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> See, this is where the argument went round in circles last time :) >> Some >> others on the usability team at the time also suggested this >> approach, but >> pers

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 13:51 +0100, David Dolphin wrote: > 2008/5/28 Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It's also, quite frankly, pretty complex, and way OTT for controlling > > the sort of changes we're talking about here IMHO. (I know you were > > just describing it, rather than suggesting it,

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See, this is where the argument went round in circles last time :) Some > others on the usability team at the time also suggested this approach, but > personally I don't think Undo is necessarily appropriate for dialogs-- i

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

2008/5/28 Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's also, quite frankly, pretty complex, and way OTT for controlling > the sort of changes we're talking about here IMHO. (I know you were > just describing it, rather than suggesting it, though!) I think what I was trying to say was that modifier ke

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On 28 May 2008, at 03:02, David Dolphin wrote: > Photoshop's undo system is incredibly useful. It is closely tied to a > history of applied commands and can be compared in ways to a simple > revision control system. It's also, quite frankly, pretty complex, and way OTT for controlling the sort

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

The first version of Photoshop I learnt to use was CS2 but I've taken a look at older versions (5&7) since then and seen some changes. Even though I know the features available in Photoshop CS2 (or CS3) were not all implemented at the same time I feel that they compliment each other. Photoshop's u

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

Ugh, I just posted just about the exact same thing... I should really read ALL my unread messages before replying to one, in case someone else has gotten there first :) Sorry for the unnecessary message. On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 13:31 +0100, Calum Benson wrote: > On 23 May 2008, at 17:46, Matthew Nuzu

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

Don't forget that GTK programmers have the option to manipulate widgets within dialogs as well as perform actions based on selections in the dialog before the user clicks "Close". This may make the "undo" option's utility vary depending on how the application is written to behave. On Tue, 2008-05-2

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

Perhaps rather than an "undo" button, there should be a "revert" button that reverts the settings to the way they were configured when the dialog was opened, and perhaps a way of reverting the settings to the system defaults... although that does add more complexity to the UI. Some applications (Co

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

Calum Benson wrote on 27/05/08 13:31: >... > See, this is where the argument went round in circles last time :) > Some others on the usability team at the time also suggested this > approach, but personally I don't think Undo is necessarily appropriate > for dialogs-- it's rare to make more

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On 23 May 2008, at 17:46, Matthew Nuzum wrote: > Instead of using the transactional approach employed in MS Windows, > where you hit the save button to save all changes and cancel to undo > all changes, each click of the "undo" button could undo the last > change progressively until you're back t

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

2008/5/23 Matthew Nuzum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There is a GNOME usability philosophy that I disagree with. When I > want to change a setting there is no easy or consistent way to undo my > change. [...] > This is a philosophy carried throughout GNOME so there are a ton of > good examples: There ar

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's been a bug open about it for many years... not so much a conscious > decision as an inability to decide on the best solution, at the time: > > > It's certainly somet

Re: [Usability] inability to experiment

On 23 May 2008, at 16:28, Matthew Nuzum wrote: > I would report this as a bug but the fact that it's so consistent > throughout the interface indicates to me that this was a conscious > design decision. I like the fact that the design principle is carried > out so consistently though. :-) There'

[Usability] inability to experiment

There is a GNOME usability philosophy that I disagree with. When I want to change a setting there is no easy or consistent way to undo my change. So for example, if I want to experiment with fonts in the Appearance Preferences dialog I like how I can see the changes right away but if I mess someth