Difference between revisions of "Expert evaluation"
(→Good) |
(→windows-7 snap) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | of workspace configuration systems | |
==tabs with text labels== | ==tabs with text labels== | ||
| − | |||
as employed by web browsers (special section: chrome’s tabs on top as window handles | as employed by web browsers (special section: chrome’s tabs on top as window handles | ||
| − | |||
====Good==== | ====Good==== | ||
| − | + | Always a unique filename visible, or partially visible in the tab line-up | |
| − | + | When the filenames are useful, it is fast and easy to switch files accurately | |
| − | + | Easy to go through files systematically | |
| − | + | Some location based aid to finding the file (in the same place in the tab- bar) | |
====Bad==== | ====Bad==== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
when there are many open files, all names cannot be equally displayed | when there are many open files, all names cannot be equally displayed | ||
| − | only makes sense for single view | + | only really makes sense for single view |
==windows in window== | ==windows in window== | ||
as prominent on ms-windows; | as prominent on ms-windows; | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Good==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | A well- used metaphor for dealing with many open files | ||
| + | |||
| + | No need for tab bars taking up valuable vertical space | ||
| + | |||
| + | Files can be organised in “piles”- i.e. on top of each other. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Flexible- lot’s of files can be open at the same time | ||
| + | |||
| + | Flexible- files can be arranged to show the part of the image required- for example the required section for cloning, or a zoomed in section. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Flexible- files can be arranged to overlap in the most useful way for users. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Users are not restricted to pre- defined systems of dividing up the workspace- they have a feeling of more freedom | ||
| + | |||
| + | Switching between open files can be very quick and easy (one click) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The file content is available to be seen, as this acts as a very effective identifier of the file’s content | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Bad==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Arranging many windows can take a lot of time | ||
| + | |||
| + | Switching between files can be difficult when many files are open and the required file is “buried” | ||
| + | |||
| + | Requires there to be a listing of open files | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lot’s of visual noise and space taken up by the window container | ||
| + | |||
| + | Each window may need individual controls on the window container - like minimise/maximise/close | ||
| + | |||
| + | Window decoration not matching the user’s OS | ||
| + | |||
==the image parade + polaroids system== | ==the image parade + polaroids system== | ||
as described in peter’s blog; | as described in peter’s blog; | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Good==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Image identification is very easy when images are clearly differentiated. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When images are easily identified switching becomes easy and fast. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The image parade can be endless- it will scroll- thus accommodating many open files | ||
| + | |||
| + | The image parade can be resizeable- even at relatively small pixel sizes, when it works, it just works. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is easy and obvious that the thumbnails can be dragged and dropped, giving lots of options for workspace configuration UI. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Bad==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | When images are too similar, they cannot be differentiated and so the switching system fails if images titles are not displayed | ||
| + | Displaying images titles means - an extra click or using more space, or more visual noise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The image parade takes up valuable vertical screen real estate, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Only a limited amount of images can be displayed on the screen at one time. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Polaroids are a one trick pony, there seems to be little point if users can't actually do anything with them. | ||
==split panes in gtk== | ==split panes in gtk== | ||
| Line 32: | Line 88: | ||
==the curlyankles extension library to gtk== | ==the curlyankles extension library to gtk== | ||
==the current multi-window system of GIMP== | ==the current multi-window system of GIMP== | ||
| − | ==windows-7 snap==peek and shake | + | |
| + | ====Good==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Easy to have many different files open | ||
| + | |||
| + | The same as the OS desktop environment- e.g appearance and window controls | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Bad==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Too much control given over to the window manager and the loss of control that means | ||
| + | |||
| + | Task bar overload | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==windows-7 snap== | ||
| + | peek and shake | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Good==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Makes side by side working easy and most of all neat to set up in a windows in windows situation | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ====Bad==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Only good for windows in windows | ||
| + | |||
| + | Neat is not necessarily required by those users who want the ultimate in flexibility | ||
| + | |||
| + | In a situation with dockable dialogs and flexible tool configurations, is the edge of the workspace stable enough to be used as a "snap" edge? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is only good for relatively small numbers of open and visible files (nowhere near our desired 23, more like 2 or 3!) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Doesn’t address any of the file switching or identification issues | ||
Latest revision as of 07:23, 8 June 2011
of workspace configuration systems
Contents
tabs with text labels
as employed by web browsers (special section: chrome’s tabs on top as window handles
Good
Always a unique filename visible, or partially visible in the tab line-up
When the filenames are useful, it is fast and easy to switch files accurately
Easy to go through files systematically
Some location based aid to finding the file (in the same place in the tab- bar)
Bad
filenames, especially when they are numeric or auto-generated are slow, or insufficient indicators of the file's content.
when there are many open files, all names cannot be equally displayed
only really makes sense for single view
windows in window
as prominent on ms-windows;
Good
A well- used metaphor for dealing with many open files
No need for tab bars taking up valuable vertical space
Files can be organised in “piles”- i.e. on top of each other.
Flexible- lot’s of files can be open at the same time
Flexible- files can be arranged to show the part of the image required- for example the required section for cloning, or a zoomed in section.
Flexible- files can be arranged to overlap in the most useful way for users.
Users are not restricted to pre- defined systems of dividing up the workspace- they have a feeling of more freedom
Switching between open files can be very quick and easy (one click)
The file content is available to be seen, as this acts as a very effective identifier of the file’s content
Bad
Arranging many windows can take a lot of time
Switching between files can be difficult when many files are open and the required file is “buried”
Requires there to be a listing of open files
Lot’s of visual noise and space taken up by the window container
Each window may need individual controls on the window container - like minimise/maximise/close
Window decoration not matching the user’s OS
the image parade + polaroids system
as described in peter’s blog;
Good
Image identification is very easy when images are clearly differentiated.
When images are easily identified switching becomes easy and fast.
The image parade can be endless- it will scroll- thus accommodating many open files
The image parade can be resizeable- even at relatively small pixel sizes, when it works, it just works.
It is easy and obvious that the thumbnails can be dragged and dropped, giving lots of options for workspace configuration UI.
Bad
When images are too similar, they cannot be differentiated and so the switching system fails if images titles are not displayed Displaying images titles means - an extra click or using more space, or more visual noise.
The image parade takes up valuable vertical screen real estate,
Only a limited amount of images can be displayed on the screen at one time.
Polaroids are a one trick pony, there seems to be little point if users can't actually do anything with them.
split panes in gtk
gtkpaned widget;
the curlyankles extension library to gtk
the current multi-window system of GIMP
Good
Easy to have many different files open
The same as the OS desktop environment- e.g appearance and window controls
Bad
Too much control given over to the window manager and the loss of control that means
Task bar overload
windows-7 snap
peek and shake
Good
Makes side by side working easy and most of all neat to set up in a windows in windows situation
Bad
Only good for windows in windows
Neat is not necessarily required by those users who want the ultimate in flexibility
In a situation with dockable dialogs and flexible tool configurations, is the edge of the workspace stable enough to be used as a "snap" edge?
Is only good for relatively small numbers of open and visible files (nowhere near our desired 23, more like 2 or 3!)
Doesn’t address any of the file switching or identification issues
