Related
I'm trying to help my team streamline a data ingestion process that is taking up a substantial amount of time. We receive data in multiple formats and with attributes arranged differently. Is there a way using RapidMiner to create a process that:
Processes files on a schedule that are dropped into a folder (this
one I think I know but I'd love tips on this as scheduled processes
are new to me)
Automatically identifies input filetype and routes to the correct operator ("Read CSV" for example)
Recognizes a relatively small number of attributes and arranges them accordingly. In some cases, attributes are named the same way as our ingestion format and in others they are not (phone vs phone # vs Phone for example)
The attributes we process mostly consist of name, id, phone, email, address. Also, in some cases names are split first/last and in some they are full name.
I recognize that munging files for such simple attributes shouldn't be that hard but the number of files we receive and lack of order makes it very difficult to streamline a process without a bit of automation. I'm also going to move to a standardized receiving format but for a number of reasons that's on the horizon and not an immediate solution.
I appreciate any tips or guidance you can share.
Your question is relative broad, so unfortunately I can't give you complete answer. But here are some ideas on how I would tackle the points you mentioned:
For a full process scheduling RapidMiner Server is what you are
looking for. In that case you can either define a schedule (e.g.,
check regularly for new files) or even define a web service to
trigger the process.
For selecting the correct operator depending on file type, you could
use a combination of "Loop Files" and macro extraction to get the
correct type and the use either "Branch" or "Select Subprocess" for
switching to different input routes.
The "Select Attributes" operator has some very powerful options to
select specific subsets only. In your example I would go for a
regular expression akin to [pP]hone.* to get the different spelling
variants. Also very helpful in that case would be the "Reorder
Attributes" operator and "Rename by Replacing" to create a common
naming schema.
A general tip when building more complex process pipelines is to organize your different tasks in sub-processes and use the "Execute Process" operator. This makes everything much more readable and maintainable. Also a good error handling strategy is important to handle unforeseen data formats.
For more elaborate answers and tips from many adavanced RapidMiner users, I also highly recommend the RapidMiner community.
I hope this gives a good starting point for your project.
I am trying to learn how to use BDD for our development process and I sometimes end-up writing things that implies a UI design, so for brand new development or new features, the UI does not always exists.
For example, if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
That gets me confused to know at what point in the process do we come up with a UI design ?
Keep in mind, I only have read articles about BDD and I think it would help our team a lot but still very new at this! Thx!
If you write your scenarios with a focus on the capabilities of the system, you'll be able to refactor the underlying steps within those scenarios more easily. It keeps them flexible. So I'd ask - what does clicking the column get for you? Are you selecting something? What are you going to do with the selection? Are you searching for something and sorting by a value?
I like to see scenarios which say things like:
When I look for the entry
When I go to the diary for January
When I look at the newest entries
When I look at the same T-shirt in black
These could all involve clicking on a column header, but the implementation detail doesn't matter. It's the capability of the system.
Beneath these high-level scenarios and steps I like to create a screen or page with the smaller steps like clicking buttons in it. This makes it easy to refactor.
I wrote this in a DSL rather than English, but it works with the same idea - you can't tell from the steps whether it's a GUI or a web page, and some of the steps involve multiple UI actions:
http://code.google.com/p/wipflash/source/browse/Example.PetShop.Scenarios/PetRegistrationAndPurchase.cs
Hope you find it interesting and maybe it helps. Good luck!
I guess you can write around that by saying "when I sort the information by X, then..." But then you would have to adjust your scenario to remove any mention of the data being displayed in a grid format, which could lead to some rather obtuse writing.
I think it's a good idea to start with UI design as soon as you possibly can. In the case you mentioned above, I think it would be perfectly valid to augment the user story with sketch of the relevant UI as you would imagine it, and then refine it as you go along. A pencil sketch on a piece of paper should be fine. Or you could use a tablet and SketchBook Pro if you want something all digital.
My point is that I don't see a real reason for the UI design to be left out of user stories. You probably already know that you're going to build a Windows, WPF, or Web application. And it's safe to assume that when you want to display tabular data, you'll be using a grid. Keeping these assumptions out of the requirements obfuscates them without adding any real value.
User stories benefit from the fact, that you describe concrete interactions and once you know concrete data and behaviour of the system for it, you might as well add more information about the way you interact. This allows you to use some tools like Cucumber, which with Selenium enables you to translate a story to a test. You might go even further and e.g. for web apps capture all pages you start concrete story at and collect all interactions with that page resulting in some sort of information architecture you might use for documentation or prototyping and later UI testing.
On the other hand, this makes your stories somewhat brittle when it comes to UI changes. I think the agile way of thinking about this is same as when it comes to design changes - do not design for the future, do the simplest possible thing, in the future you might need to change it anyway.
If you stripped your user stories of all concrete things (even inputs) you will end up with use cases(at least in their simplest format, depends on how you write your stories). Use cases are in this respect not brittle at all, they specify only goals. This makes them resistant to change, but its harder to transfer information automatically using tools.
As for the process, RUP/UP derives UI from use cases, but I think agile is in its nature incremental (I will not say iterative, this would exclude agile methods like FDD and Kanban). This means, as you implement new story, you add to your UI what is necessary. This only makes adding UI specifics in stories more reasonable. The problem is, that this is not a very good way to create UI or more generally UX(user experience). This is exactly what one might call a weakpoint of agile. The Agile manifesto concentrates on functional software, but that is it. There are as far as I know no agile techniques for designing UI or UX.
I think you just need to step back a bit.
BAD: When I click the column header, the rows get sorted by the column I clicked.
GOOD: Then I sort the rows by name, or sometimes by ZIP code if the name is very common, like "Smith".
A user story / workflow is a sequence of what the user wants to achieve, not a sequence of actions how he achieves that. You are collecting the What's so you can determine the best How's for all users and use cases.
Looking at a singular aspect of your post:
if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
If this came from a user, not from you, it would show a hidden expectation that there actually is a table or grid with column headers. Even coming from you it's not entirely without value, as you might be a user, too. It might be short-sighted, thinking of a grid just because it comes from an SQL query, or it might be spot-on because it's the presentation you expect the data in. A creative UI isnÄt a bad thing as such, but ignoring user expectations is.
My boss believes that wizards make things simple for the user.
I think they have their place but I can't really define what that place is.
I feel there is a danger in turning something into steps that doesn't need them.
Does anyone know where I could find rules for such things, or even a guideline to follow that describes when and when not to use wizards and possibly even other UI elements.
Here is what some common Human Interface Guidelines have to say about when to use them. Most are quite restrictive:
Gnome HIG
An assistant is a secondary window that guides the user through an operation by breaking it into sequential steps. Assistants are useful for making complex operations less intimidating, as they restrict the information visible to the user at any given moment.
[...]
Assistants do have major downsides. After using an assistant it is often hard to figure out where the individual settings aggregated into the assistant are stored. Often people will resort to re-running the assistant, re-entering many settings that they don't want to change.
Assistants are often used in situations where a better solution would be to simplify, or even better automate, the process. Before using an assistant to step people through a complex operation, consider if the operation can be fundamentally simplified so an assistant is unnecessary.
Microsoft Windows Experience Interaction Guidelines:
Consider lightweight alternatives first, such as dialog boxes, task panes, or single pages. Wizards are a heavy UI, best used for multi-step, infrequently performed task. You don't have to use wizards—you can provide helpful information and assistance in any UI.
Apple Human Interface Guidelines
For products with complex setup procedures, a setup assistant can be helpful
(Assistants are not mentioned in any other context, as in the other HIG:s, so I assume that means that Apple think they have no place except for setup)
I'd agree with you that Wizards have their place. And that place is back in Azeroth.
No, but seriously, if the user has to input a lot of different data fields, using a Wizard to split up the data entry into several related groups might help to make things less confusing.
If the Wizard covers a process that consists of steps A, B, and C, and the input at B or C depends on the input at the previous step(s), a Wizard would probably be a good way to structure your application.
There are probably a lot of other situations in which using a Wizard would be warranted (those are just two off the top of my head), but in each case, you'd want to evaluate it and make sure that a Wizard is the absolute best option. To borrow an old saying, everything doesn't become a nail just because your boss wants you to use Wizards as a hammer. If that makes sense.
As far as best practices guidelines goes -- the use of Wizards seems to fall under UX rather than UI, but here's a few items that I came across:
Wizard-style forms best practices
Designing Effective Wizards: A Multidisciplinary Approach (Book)
Best Practice: Designing Wizards
Try reading this.
I would suggest to avoid wizards as much as possible. People have a short attention span and you risk that, at the middle of it, they start forgetting what the said, what they are doing there, etc.
That being said, i think that it may be viable when performing some shopping (e.g., checkout), first-time configurations, others?
When to Develop a Wizard
Always try to:
Only ask the information really needed
Simplify as much as you can, thus avoiding the need to additional explanation
When creating a wizard:
Clearly show the how many steps are needed and how many are completed
Allow the user to revert or cancel it
It happens sometimes that one feature seems to belong to more than one place.
Trivial example, let's say I've got the following menus :
File
Pending orders
Accepted orders
Tools
Help
I've got a search feature, and the same search window work for both pending and accepted orders (it's just an 'order status' combo you can change)
Where does this search feature belongs?
The Tools menu seems to be a good choice, but I'm afraid the users may expect the search accepted orders to be in the accepted orders menu, which would make sense
Duplicating the menu entry in both pending and accepted order seems wrong to me.
What would you do? (And let's pretend we cannot merge the two orders menu into one single menu)
I think the problem you've run into is that you're thinking like a programmer. (code duplication bad). I'm not faulting you for it, I do the same thing. Multiple paths to the same screen, or multiple ways to handle the same process can actually be extremely beneficial. I would guess that more than one person is going to use your program and each probably have slightly different job functions. In essence, they have different needs for the application and will approach using it different ways. If you stick to the all items have one way of being accessed, some people will find the application beneficial and others won't. Sure all people can learn to do a task a certain way, but it won't make sense to some users. It's not intuitive (read familiar) to they way they are used to processing information, which means the application will ultimately be less beneficial to them. When people find a process (program etc.) frustrating, they won't adopt it. They find reasons why the process will need to be changed or abandoned.
An excellent example of the multiple approaches to a problem is with Adobe Photoshop. Normally there are at least 2 different ways to access a function. Most users only know of one, because that's all they are concerned with, but most users are really comfortable with using one, because it makes the most sense to them. With a little extra work, Adobe scored a huge win, because more people find their product intuitive.
Having a feature in multiple locations is not a bad thing. Consider the overall workflow for viewing both pending orders and accepted orders, and think of your new feature as a component, rather than a one-off entity.
After you map out exactly what tasks a user completes in the pending and accepted order viewing process, see where having the ability to search would provide value (by shortening the workflow or otherwise). This is where your search component belongs.
The main thing to remember about UI is that all that really matters in the end is whether your design makes using your application or site a better experience for your users.
In the search example you list above you'll commonly see apps take two approaches:
Put the search feature in a single location and allow the user to filter the search by selecting pending or accepted, or
Put the search feature in both menus, already configured for the type of search to be done based on the menu it was launched from.
If you repeat the above choice for a number of factors you'll see a much more advanced (aka 'complicated') search interface for number one, and a much simpler (aka 'restrictive') search interface for number two.
Which one is best completely depends on your users. This is why many general applications have a simple search by default and a link to a more advanced search for those that want or need the additional capabilities; they're attempting to make everyone happy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that if you're writing for a wide variety of people with different needs. If you're writing for a set of users with a restricted set of needs however, you can make some better choices.
In my experience your best bet is to work with one or two of your primary users and map out all of the steps they need to take to get each of the tasks the application will be helping them with accomplished. If there aren't a lot of branching points in that sequence of steps there shouldn't be a lot of choices or settings to make in the application; otherwise the users may feel that the app is harder to work with than it needs to be.
For the search example above, if the user has already navigated into the Pending Orders menu, the likelihood that they'll want to launch a search for Accepted Orders is very small and having to make that choice, or go elsewhere to do the search, will be an extra decision or action they'll need to take. Basic principle is if your user has already made a decision, use it; don't make them tell you again.
Use the UI you come up with as a first cut. Let your users, or a subset of them, try it out and make suggestions. If you have the option, watch them use it. You'll learn far more about how to improve the interface by seeing how they work with it than you will from what they tell you.
Generally you do not want the same menu item appearing in different menus. It adds complexity and clutter to the menu, and users will wonder if the two menu items are really the same or not. When it appears that a menu item belongs in two places, then you may have a more basic problem with your menu organization.
For instance, your example shows a menu bar that is organized by the class or attribute of the object the commands within act on. In general, the menu bar should be organized by category of action not type of object. For example, you could have a Retrieval menu for commands like Search and other means of displaying orders, and a Modify menu for processing the orders (e.g., updating, accepting, forwarding). Both menus would have menu items that apply to both types of objects, although some commands may apply to only one.
Organizing commands by object type is actually a good idea but it is better accomplished with a context menu (right click) than the menu bar.
I would try the search in both the Accepted Orders and Pending Orders menus. However, user testing will show if this is a good idea or not. But it also depends on your user base.
You are doing user testing right?
...you may already know this, but this is a good place to use the command\action pattern IMHO.
So to answer your question: IMO, yes, it is ok :) This situation is definitely warranted.
Just put it under both menus and have it open your search window, pre-configured for the order type who's menu it was launched from. Name them accordingly and voila they're actually two different actions - even though they use the same code/component.
Keep the user-selectable "status combo you can change" in the search window active though so the user still can adjust the settings without relaunching it from the other menu... and then perhaps rethink the structure, see some of the great answers in here for ideas ^^
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
What is your best practical user-friendly user-interface design or principle?
Please submit those practices that you find actually makes things really useful - no matter what - if it works for your users, share it!
Summary/Collation
Principles
KISS.
Be clear and specific in what an option will achieve: for example, use verbs that indicate the action that will follow on a choice (see: Impl. 1).
Use obvious default actions appropriate to what the user needs/wants to achieve.
Fit the appearance and behavior of the UI to the environment/process/audience: stand-alone application, web-page, portable, scientific analysis, flash-game, professionals/children, ...
Reduce the learning curve of a new user.
Rather than disabling or hiding options, consider giving a helpful message where the user can have alternatives, but only where those alternatives exist. If no alternatives are available, its better to disable the option - which visually then states that the option is not available - do not hide the unavailable options, rather explain in a mouse-over popup why it is disabled.
Stay consistent and conform to practices, and placement of controls, as is implemented in widely-used successful applications.
Lead the expectations of the user and let your program behave according to those expectations.
Stick to the vocabulary and knowledge of the user and do not use programmer/implementation terminology.
Follow basic design principles: contrast (obviousness), repetition (consistency), alignment (appearance), and proximity (grouping).
Implementation
(See answer by paiNie) "Try to use verbs in your dialog boxes."
Allow/implement undo and redo.
References
Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx]
Dutch websites - "Drempelvrij" guidelines [http://www.drempelvrij.nl/richtlijnen]
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/]
Consistence [http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0385267746]
Don't make me Think [http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/0321344758/ref=pdbbssr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221726383&sr=8-1]
Be powerful and simple [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511332.aspx]
Gestalt design laws [http://www.squidoo.com/gestaltlaws]
I test my GUI against my grandma.
Try to use verbs in your dialog boxes.
It means use
instead of
Follow basic design principles
Contrast - Make things that are different look different
Repetition - Repeat the same style in a screen and for other screens
Alignment - Line screen elements up! Yes, that includes text, images, controls and labels.
Proximity - Group related elements together. A set of input fields to enter an address should be grouped together and be distinct from the group of input fields to enter credit card info. This is basic Gestalt Design Laws.
Never ask "Are you sure?". Just allow unlimited, reliable undo/redo.
Try to think about what your user wants to achieve instead of what the requirements are.
The user will enter your system and use it to achieve a goal. When you open up calc you need to make a simple fast calculation 90% of the time so that's why by default it is set to simple mode.
So don't think about what the application must do but think about the user which will be doing it, probably bored, and try to design based on what his intentions are, try to make his life easier.
If you're doing anything for the web, or any front-facing software application for that matter, you really owe it to yourself to read...
Don't make me think - Steve Krug
Breadcrumbs in webapps:
Tell -> The -> User -> Where -> She -> Is in the system
This is pretty hard to do in "dynamic" systems with multiple paths to the same data, but it often helps navigate the system.
I try to adapt to the environment.
When developing for an Windows application, I use the Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines but when I'm developing an web application I use the appropriate guidelines, because I develop Dutch websites I use the "Drempelvrij" guidelines which are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
The reason I do this is to reduce the learning curve of a new user.
I would recommend to get a good solid understanding of GUI design by reading the book The Design of Everyday Things. Although the main printable is a comment from Joel Spolsky: When the behavior of the application differs to what the user expects to happen then you have a problem with your graphical user interface.
The best example is, when somebody swaps around the OK and Cancel button on some web sites. The user expects the OK button to be on the left, and the Cancel button to be on the right. So in short, when the application behavior differs to what the user expects what to happen then you have a user interface design problem.
Although, the best advice, in no matter what design or design pattern you follow, is to keep the design and conventions consistent throughout the application.
Avoid asking the user to make choices whenever you can (i.e. don't create a fork with a configuration dialog!)
For every option and every message box, ask yourself: can I instead come up with some reasonable default behavior that
makes sense?
does not get in the user's way?
is easy enough to learn that it costs little to the user that I impose this on him?
I can use my Palm handheld as an example: the settings are really minimalistic, and I'm quite happy with that. The basic applications are well designed enough that I can simply use them without feeling the need for tweaking. Ok, there are some things I can't do, and in fact I sort of had to adapt myself to the tool (instead of the opposite), but in the end this really makes my life easier.
This website is another example: you can't configure anything, and yet I find it really nice to use.
Reasonable defaults can be hard to figure out, and simple usability tests can provide a lot of clues to help you with that.
Show the interface to a sample of users. Ask them to perform a typical task. Watch for their mistakes. Listen to their comments. Make changes and repeat.
The Design of Everyday Things - Donald Norman
A canon of design lore and the basis of many HCI courses at universities around the world. You won't design a great GUI in five minutes with a few comments from a web forum, but some principles will get your thinking pointed the right way.
--
MC
When constructing error messages make the error message be
the answers to these 3 questions (in that order):
What happened?
Why did it happen?
What can be done about it?
This is from "Human Interface Guidelines: The Apple Desktop
Interface" (1987, ISBN 0-201-17753-6), but it can be used
for any error message anywhere.
There is an updated version for Mac OS X.
The Microsoft page
User Interface Messages
says the same thing: "... in the case of an error message,
you should include the issue, the cause, and the user action
to correct the problem."
Also include any information that is known by the program,
not just some fixed string. E.g. for the "Why did it happen" part of the error message use "Raw spectrum file
L:\refDataForMascotParser\TripleEncoding\Q1LCMS190203_01Doub
leArg.wiff does not exist" instead of just "File does
not exist".
Contrast this with the infamous error message: "An error
happend.".
(Stolen from Joel :o) )
Don't disable/remove options - rather give a helpful message when the user click/select it.
As my data structure professor pointed today: Give instructions on how your program works to the average user. We programmers often think we're pretty logical with our programs, but the average user probably won't know what to do.
Use discreet/simple animated features to create seamless transitions from one section the the other. This helps the user to create a mental map of navigation/structure.
Use short (one word if possible) titles on the buttons that describe clearly the essence of the action.
Use semantic zooming where possible (a good example is how zooming works on Google/Bing maps, where more information is visible when you focus on an area).
Create at least two ways to navigate: Vertical and horizontal. Vertical when you navigate between different sections and horizontal when you navigate within the contents of the section or subsection.
Always keep the main options nodes of your structure visible (where the size of the screen and the type of device allows it).
When you go deep into the structure always keep a visible hint (i.e. such as in the form of a path) indicating where you are.
Hide elements when you want the user to focus on data (such as reading an article or viewing a project). - however beware of point #5 and #4.
Be Powerful and Simple
Oh, and hire a designer / learn design skills. :)
With GUIs, standards are kind of platform specific. E.g. While developing GUI in Eclipse this link provides decent guideline.
I've read most of the above and one thing that I'm not seeing mentioned:
If users are meant to use the interface ONCE, showing only what they need to use if possible is great.
If the user interface is going to be used repeatedly by the same user, but maybe not very often, disabling controls is better than hiding them: the user interface changing and hidden features not being obvious (or remembered) by an occasional user is frustrating to the user.
If the user interface is going to be used VERY REGULARLY by the same user (and there is not a lot of turnover in the job i.e. not a lot of new users coming online all the time) disabling controls is absolutely helpful and the user will become accustomed to the reasons why things happen but preventing them from using controls accidentally in improper contexts appreciated and prevents errors.
Just my opinion, but it all goes back to understanding your user profile, not just what a single user session might entail.