GUI and interface suggestions [pics]...

A collection of especially useful xplorer² topics and ideas. New users may find it helpful to look here before searching the other forums for information. >>>>>> Please post new material in the relevant forum. (New stuff posted here will be removed.) Thanks. -fg-

Moderators: fgagnon, nikos

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

GUI and interface suggestions [pics]...

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 14, 18:50

This thread was originally posted  in the xplorer² Professional forum.        
Moved here 19-May-2010 =fg=
=====================================================


Some interface and workflow improvement suggestions that could significantly improve users' efficiency in x2.  It would be great to have these implemented!

**New users be aware that this is just a photoshopped concept.  These interface options and layouts are currently not possible in xplorer2.**

Image

alternate non marked up image:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4240/x2gui5or.gif[/img]
Last edited by TsunamiZ on 2007 Sep 20, 19:34, edited 15 times in total.

User avatar
ZoNi
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 253
Joined: 2002 Nov 03, 14:24
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Post by ZoNi » 2006 Feb 15, 00:35

well, nice... I agree with some stuff, but not with "serious resolution of 1280+"  :!:

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 15, 05:04

ZoNi wrote:well, nice... I agree with some stuff, but not with "serious resolution of 1280+"  :!:
The resolution thing is just to mention that a lot of computer users are using resolutions beyond 1024x768 nowadays--in case anyone says they don't have enough room for their toolbars and icons.

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 15, 07:01

Update: Added XP style marquee suggestion.

User avatar
mimeryme
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 107
Joined: 2003 Apr 29, 18:38
Location: Brooklyn
Contact:

Post by mimeryme » 2006 Feb 18, 07:14

Personally, I prefer the way x2's interface is now.  I use a minimum set of buttons and dislike the separate sets.  It eats up too much screen real estate IMO (even at resolutions larger than 1024x768) though there is something to be said about the focus issue.  No matter how large a resolution used, I prefer to keep the main browsing area at a maximum.

I think x2's tabs look great the way they are, but XP tab styles would be nice for those who use msstyles - if for nothing but consistency in the OS.

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 18, 07:26

mimeryme wrote:Personally, I prefer the way x2's interface is now.  I use a minimum set of buttons and dislike the separate sets.  It eats up too much screen real estate IMO (even at resolutions larger than 1024x768) though there is something to be said about the focus issue.  No matter how large a resolution used, I prefer to keep the main browsing area at a maximum.

I think x2's tabs look great the way they are, but XP tab styles would be nice for those who use msstyles - if for nothing but consistency in the OS.
However, you should be aware that this GUI concept is most productive for users that use dual pane frequently.  In which case, such button and toolbar layouts are necessary for quick access to buttons and to avoid auto focus issues [when aiming for buttons] in dual pane mode.  Plus if you pay close attention to the toolbars, you'll notice they're customizable so you can remove extra toolbars.  And if you already prefer a minimum button set, then you would have no issue with fitting all your buttons on-screen at lower resolution.  Keep in mind this request is just for an option / possiblity that users can position their GUI like this--not asking to lose the current layout options.

As for comparison on the tabs and reasons for improvement: http://forum.zabkat.com/viewtopic.php?t=3479&highlight=

User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 14483
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos » 2006 Feb 18, 10:16

it may seem odd but i believe that one of the features that make x2 successful is the very lack of infinite adjustability. Take m$ office. Probably whatever you could think you wanted out of it, exists already,  but you'd first die searching for it. x2 has few easy  to find adjustments and that's it

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 18, 10:30

nikos wrote:it may seem odd but i believe that one of the features that make x2 successful is the very lack of infinite adjustability. Take m$ office. Probably whatever you could think you wanted out of it, exists already,  but you'd first die searching for it. x2 has few easy  to find adjustments and that's it
Well I'm not requesting infinite adjustability, since I am very specific as to what adjustment should be added and how each can clearly improve a stated aspect of x2's efficiency and ease of use.  There are just some bare essentials that it needs to get past to make it that much better.  Essentials are not anything users will have to "find", since they are a part of everyday use.

User avatar
JRz
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 560
Joined: 2003 Jun 10, 23:19
Location: NL

Post by JRz » 2006 Feb 20, 09:21

IMHO, X² has all the essentials it needs (let alone bare essentials). It all depends what one deems essential. For me, graphical enhancements for instance fall in that category only if they enhance functionality, not just sheer looks.
Dumb questions are the ones that are never asked :turn:

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 20, 12:01

JRz wrote:IMHO, X² has all the essentials it needs (let alone bare essentials). It all depends what one deems essential. For me, graphical enhancements for instance fall in that category only if they enhance functionality, not just sheer looks.
Have you not read the reasoning behind the XP interface support?  Their is logical practicality in improving the visual interaction with the user to improve workflow and user response times.  It's not for eye candy.  :roll:  And nikos doesn't have to create any visuals himself since it's emulating existing the XP GUI.

User avatar
JRz
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 560
Joined: 2003 Jun 10, 23:19
Location: NL

Post by JRz » 2006 Feb 21, 08:09

Of course I have read it. Doesn't change my point of view though.

I agree that it would be nice to have, but i disagree about it being essential. We obviously have a different opinion about what is deemed essential in a file manager, so be it. Doesn't make my opinion less valuable though :)
Dumb questions are the ones that are never asked :turn:

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 21, 10:34

I'm sure we go by different workflow efficiencies as well.  Perhaps I'm just more savvy than most.  :wink:

User avatar
JRz
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 560
Joined: 2003 Jun 10, 23:19
Location: NL

Post by JRz » 2006 Feb 21, 17:36

I'm sure you are perfect in every thinkable way. Don't make it too hard for us lesser gods, please  8)
Dumb questions are the ones that are never asked :turn:

TsunamiZ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 596
Joined: 2005 Nov 06, 04:44

Post by TsunamiZ » 2006 Feb 21, 17:46

It's just that I'm a professional computer graphics artist, so I may have more experience with various workflow environments and interface efficiency optimizations [since I click on the screen a lot and work under tight timelines].  But any optimizations suggested from the pros can help other users, as well.  :wink:

Brad
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2003 Nov 10, 21:43

Post by Brad » 2006 Feb 24, 21:08

My opinions follow....

XP Style Tabs: Disagree - the current tabs are easier to discern (although judging from past posts I am the only one who thinks this); the active tab can be distinguished by color, shape, and font. In XP color is the only queue. If there is anything wrong with the current tabs it is that the active tab is darker than the inactive ones (Didn't we have this discussion ages ago with regards to the pane background color?). My other suggestion  would be to force the tab size to stay constant between the active/inactive state to make switching between tabs a little easier for mouse users. I seem to keep double clicking tabs (which as you know closes them) when I try to quickly switch to another tab and back again.

Toolbars: I dislike the duplication of the toolsbars. If efficiency is really the goal then perhaps larger icons would be better, but I don't have the time nor desire to check it (Fitts law).

Adding icon customization: Agree fully. This would be a huge benefit, as bookmarks on toolbars currently require the text to be shown to be useful.

Up on level: Disagree. There are so many ways to move up a directory now (double click, backspace, click on path) why fill up more screen real estate? For mouse users, the current click-on-the-path system is much more direct (multiple levels can be traversed with a single click), uses zero addition screenspace, and creates a larger target space (unless the directory name is a single letter).

Non-clickable pathbar: Removing this feature would be a major step back (see previous point). Do mouse users really edit the path with the keyboard? Currently keyboard users can easily get to the path bar from anywhere (Alt-Tab). Note that the current path dropdown already maintains a seperate history for each pane & tab.

Display # Files when multi-selection: Already implemented (in 1.5.0.0 at least)

Diplicate status bar: Indifferent - Can't think of a lot of situations where one needs to see such detailed information on the inactive pane, but they probably exist. If you go this way, why not combine the individual pane status bars (or at least the bottom one, if they are split top/bottom) with the window status bar?

I realise my opinion is probably not as valid as a self-proclaimed power user, but there it is.

Nikos - still loving this software. Every elease has some treats.

Post Reply