can you tell me how to effectively document analytical events (clicks on buttons, etc. for websites) for further easy updating and easy work of different teams on one product with the ability to change events and so on (because the design of the website changes often).
I currently use excel with event, description, additional parameters, and a screenshot of the place with the button.
I wonder how other people do it, maybe there are already good tools for such tasks. Share your ideas if you don't mind, I would be grateful.
Related
As the title suggests...
Is it possible to add custom Data Detectors to Cocoa apps?
If so, a gentle nudge in the right direction would be great.
Note: To be clear. I want to add new detectors to currents apps. I am not writing a new app.
Thankyou
W
It's not even possible to build a custom data detector on anything but iOS 4. NSDataDetector is only available on iOS 4 and above.
If they existed on OS X and were a plug-in class like Spotlight importers, that'd be a nice feature. Perhaps filing a request at bugreport.apple.com would help it along?
Later update
I think the reason this hasn't been opened up with an API is because they're only meant to find common data (contact info, dates, URLs) for which there is only one (or just a few) uses. That is, contact info can be stored or used in "the" system-designated app. URLs can be auto-highlighted so they're linkable (clicks invoke the system-designated handler - Safari, an app registered to a protocol, etc.). But there's only one direction to funnel those actions and the endpoint is always a major "convenience app" meant to manage this common information (contacts, calendar, browser, email app, phone app...)
On the other hand, consider app-specific information. Data formatted a certain way for use with one app or platform might mean something else entirely to another application. In fact, this is rather common. So what happens when a string like %%SOMESTRING%% is detected? To one app, it might be a placeholder token. To another, it might be a user name. To another still, it might be interpreted as %%USERNAME followed by %%. Suddenly the simple system-wide UI for handling basic data types has to account for multiple actions and/or multiple "data detector plugins" claiming all or part of a format.
I'm not sure we'll ever see custom data detector APIs on iOS or Mac for this reason alone.
While custom data detectors aren't available at the OS level, there is a mechanism that will get you almost there. One possibility is to create a Workflow in Automator and save it in the Services menu.
It can be configured to be active when text is highlighted. You'd either go to the current app's main menu and select the Workflow under "Services", or else right click on the text and go to the "Services" menu from there. Not as easy as clicking on the text as you would a URL, but pretty close.
Create a workflow in Automator on Mac
There is no questions: UI-First Software Development. But what does it takes to do the UI first?
I started to build a website, a complicated one, and know I start to concern about the UI. Instead to start coding html+css, I decided to start with SkecthFlow. now, I'm very confused. Do I want to build a exact sketch? meaning to think about colors, fonts make sure that the button will look like a web link... etc, or just build the application sketch flow? meaning put a textboxes and buttons. Do I need to implement every thing in SketchFlow first?
I'm looking for best practice.
When I am doing wireframes, the goal is to NOT have the user/reviewer worry about colors/fonts/etc. but rather to have them focus on the details of the UI workflow/screen flow and specific types of controls they want to use. Even placement of the controls is secondary unless it impacts usability.
That's why SketchFlow comes with the style set that has the UI look like hand-drawn black and white chalkboard drawings.
Many non-programmers (and some programmers too) get hung up on colors, fonts and graphic design, which can suck up a bunch of time early in a project. All of that can easily be done later, when the functionality is all decided upon and in development.
I recently got myself a second monitor and I have been looking at software which offers the possibility to extend the taskbar to the second monitor. Softwares such as UltraMon and MultiMon offer such possibility.
I'd be interested to know what is the method they are using to replicate the tasbar? More precisely:
Is the second taskbar completely generated and managed by the software or is it some sort of extension/modification of how Windows behave?
How are the additionnal buttons on the window handle added? Is there some sort of templating system similar to what Stardock does?
How can you replicate the taskbar feel?
How can you remove open software icons from the main taskbar in order to move them to the software's taskbar?
Would creating a second start button actually be some sort of image of the said button, and the software would require to do POSSIBLE calls to the Windows API? (by possible, I mean I have no idea if such calls exists)
Finally, I'd be interested to know what field of knowledge is required to program such software.
I'd be glad to receive any pointers to articles or information that would lead to answers. If you have in depth knowledge that you'd gladly share, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks to all for your replies.
They completely re-create the experience. DisplayFusion uses the Desktop Window Manager API to capture live thumbnails. Scott Hanselman has a very good rundown on just how close they got and where they're different.
I would imagine there is a lot of ugly code required to get it as close as they've gotten it.
I've noticed recently that it seems to be a trend in Windows applications to no longer include the menu bar in an application (the "File Edit ..." menu), instead having the functionality linked to icons seemingly randomly spread around the application window.
for example: IE8, Windows 7 media player.
Is there any usability evidence driving this change? (I, personally, find these apps really hard to use)
If so, can someone suggest where I might find this research and perhaps some guidelines for writing new applications using this style?
Some answers have suggested that it's the "Ribbon" style, which appears to be what I'm looking at. I'm still having trouble finding guidelines or evidence of what works/doesn't work.
The MS Office Ribbon perhaps inspired the latest slew of apps that use multiple icons without text labels in lieu of a menu bar. However, the implementation of these apps apparently failed to understand or realize the advantages of the Ribbon or even what makes a Ribbon a Ribbon.
Controls labeled with icons alone are more difficult to learn than those labeled with text alone [See Wiedenbeck S (1999). The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an empirical study of learning and retention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2)]. The lack of text labels for groups of controls in these apps can’t help.
Note that the Office Ribbon generally avoids both of these pitfalls by providing text labels for groups of controls (the Office Logo being a notable exception) and text labels for most individual controls (many controls on the Home tab being another notable exception).
After being subject to much research, the Office Ribbon largely preserved the traditional File-Edit-View arrangement of commands found the traditional menu bar. There’s no evidence that there’s anything wrong with this organization.
IMO, icon-scattered UI designs represent a fashion or branding statement, a rather clumsy attempt to appear “state-of-the-art” like Office, and an excuse to decorate the UI with graphics. They are not a usability improvement.
For everything about the Ribbon, see Jensen Harris’s blog.
My critique of the Ribbon. Not that I'm particularly satisfied with the traditional menu bar and tool bar.
It is ribbon. Presumably it is easier to use than the standard menu because it is context dependent. The whole purpose of developing it was that despite the fact Word can do almost anything now, people were complaining it is missing some features just because they couldn't find them. So MS people were thinking hard and ribbon is what they created. Being context dependent it shows you the features you might use right now, not all the features and it saves screen estate so more features actually visible to the user.
Well, after a quick search I found a reasonable explanation of this UI trend. It is based on the Ribbon concept. It traces back from Office 2007 and even Firefox is using it.
References:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/351808/firefox-tidies-up-with-office-2007s-ribbon
http://slashdot.org/story/09/09/23/1846248/Firefox-To-Replace-Menus-Wi
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Sprints/Windows_Theme_Revamp/Direction_and_Feedback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing)
The ribbon still serves as a navigation area - a combination of a menubar and toolbar that tends to be organized by area (Print, Design, Layout, External Data) rather than traditional style (File, Edit, Tools). While it does take a bit of getting used to things being organized by area, it certainly adds to the usability.
I think the reason IE 8 integrates the menu bar into the same line as the tab is to allow for more viewing real estate (or junky toolbar add-ons). A ribbon would be overkill for something as simple as a browser where 99% of the time you do one of 3 things: Enter a URL, Go to Bookmarks/Favorites, or Print.
If you are writing a Windows-based database system or other complex application, definitely checkout how Microsoft utilizes the ribbons throughout its Office products.
The "ribbon" is nothing more than a FAT toolbar. Such things are getting invented, not because of user request or need, but because of the arrogance of large corporations and bored, rich managers and "developers" sitting around with nothing to do. "Inventing" things is one thing, but FORCING it on everyone w/o preserving the previous, non-cluttered, classic, working, familiar interface is absolute arrogance. People need to be informed. You don't have to put up with it. Say something.
which of the following styles do you prefer?
An application which to perform tasks opens new forms
An application which keeps the various "forms" in different tabs
An application which is based on a PageControl and shows you the right tab depending on what you want to do.
Something else
Also do you have any good links for gui design?
From a programmers point of view, the PageControl solution quickly gets out of hand. Possibly too much code and certainly to many components on one form. (Originally this question was tagged Delphi, so I go from there.)
From a users point of view, the "opens new window" paradigm often is confusing. We people tend to think that we are able to multitask and handle many open windows and tasks, but we are not (we task switch at a loss of time like computers and add loss of accuracy).
Obviously this really depends on the type of application. But I would tend to a paradigm as Chrome and Firefox show in their latest incarnations:
keep the various forms in different tabs
let the user detach a tab into its own form (dock and undock via drag%drop)
add a good way of navigation
I implement something like an SDI as main screen of an application too. Look at something like "outlook style". Navigation, list of objects, object details in different panes, some additional panes like a cockpit. And then open a new window/form for certain tasks (some modal, some non modal), but short lived. After the email is written, it is sent and closes the window. But I have, if I am capable of doing so, the possibility to work on multiple emails at the time.
Look at the problem. If it has dashboard character, take "outlook style" or so. If the users are a wide spread, heterogeneous, non computer savvy crowd, use SDI or forms on tabs. If you write for programmers, you might go for multiple forms, just because we tend to think that we can handle it. And it works for multiple screens (hopefully).
MDI is the worst choice possible, in my opinion. There's nothing I hate more than having to resize a bunch of windows, or tile them or whatever.
Tabs are bad, too, especially if you have more than one row of them (or if you have one row but still have more tabs than will fit, and have to use some funky scrollbar or "more" button with them).
I would rather see the programmer think about the problem and just show me what I need to see based on what I'm doing as a user. Implementing the different user interfaces in your programs as user controls (as opposed to discrete forms) and then showing them or hiding them based on the current context is the way to go.
The Tabbed form is a good idea if you use a frame for each tab content. This keeps you out of trouble from getting too much code in one single form unit. Try to do the same as Google Chrome. I personally create a menu with the options that are actually frames that loads only when the user asks for it, so there will never be many tabs visible unless the user needs them all opened.