I am developing a ERP software inhouse and one of the requests is to have the the username of the person creating any document to appear on the window title when that document is opened.
It will be something like [USR] - Transport Order 123456
Are there any usability rules that I am not adhering to by doing this? It just looks a bit unprofessional to have [] in the window title.
Any ideas?
There's nothing wrong with that at all. As a matter of fact, many of the biggest ERP applications do similar things.
In my opinion, though, the first part of the title should either be the name of the application or the name of the window. Anything else should go after that. It just makes it easier to read.
Something like this, maybe:
ApplicationName - Transport Order 123456 - UserName
Both the Windows UX Guidelines and Apple HIG have rules for naming windows. However, the specific rules are oriented towards document-type applications rather than database-type applications like ERP. Nonetheless the general principles apply.
The primary purpose of the window title is to make it easy for users to distinguish their windows. For this reason both Windows UX Guidelines and Apple HIG recommend windows be titled by their content, since that is usually what users will be looking for to choose a window to click on. Other potentially useful information, like the program name, may follow the content identity. The Windows UX Guidelines, for example recommends a “document name – program name” format (p316). You want the most distinguishing information first in the title so it's easiest to see, especially when looking at the task bar for which the name is often truncated. Also, the icon represents the program identity, so the program name is a little redundant anyway.
Multi-window ERP apps likewise should distinguish their windows by their content. Thus generally, the title should start with the window name, identifying the class of data shown in the window, followed by any filtering or querying criteria of the data. This order assumes users are more likely to have open two different windows than two instances of the same window with different filtering criteria. The title may end with the program or application name, if you think it’s necessary. So an example title would be something like:
Shipments (Ship Date: 2008-01-01 to 2010-01-01) ERP-O-Rama
It may be helpful to include the user who created or "owns" the data if that is different than the user currently looking at the data, but that still doesn't sound like something that distinguishes windows -are users going to be looking two different versions of the same content created by two different users? It seems at best to be secondary information to put at the end of the title if there at all. Why do users need to know this? Perhaps it should be a field in the window or a property in a Properties dialog.
You certainly don't need the current user's name in the title, unless users can be simultaneously logged in under different identities (e.g., they’re Jakob Nielsen for one window but Jared Spool for another). Users generally know who they are, so it seems like unnecessary clutter to me. If users may be logged in as different users or roles for different sessions (which is generally not a good idea) then you may want to represent that in the status bar, but not the title bar.
Brackets vs. parentheses vs. dashes seem like a matter of taste to me. Windows generally prefers em-dashes. My only advice is to use them only when necessary to delimit substrings. "[USR]" doesn't seem appropriate unless there may be spaces in the username.
Do your users care if you break a "usability rule", so long as what you do makes the program more usable? That is, if putting the username in the title enhances usability for your specific users, strict adherence to some standard comes secondary.
Put the needs of your user first. If putting the user's name in the title bar enhances usability, by all means do it.
I recommend something like
123456 - Joe User
The square brackets aren't necessary, and neither is the phrase "Transport Order" unless you need them for disambiguation.
Related
I'm currently working on an internationalisation project for a large web application - initially we're just implementing French but more languages will follow in time. One of the issues we've come across is how to display adjectives.
Let's take "Active" as an example. When we received translations back from the company we're using, they returned "Actif(ve)", as English "Active" translates to masculine "Actif" or feminine "Active". We're unsure of how to display this, and wondered if there are any well established conventions in the web development world.
As far as I see it there are three possible scenarios:
We know at development time which noun a given adjective is referring to. In this case we can determine and use the correct gender.
We're referring to a user, either directly ("you") or in the third person. Short of making every user have a gender, I don't see a better approach than displaying both, i.e. "Actif(ve)"
We are displaying the adjective in isolation, not knowing which noun it's referring to. For example in a table of data, some rows might be dealing with a masculine entity, some feminine.
Scenarios 2 and 3 seem to be the toughest ones. Does anyone have any experience handling these issues? Any tips would be appreciated!
This is complex, because we cannot imagine all the cases, and there is risk to go in "opinion based" answer, so I keep it short and generic.
Usually I prefer to give context in translation (for translator), e.g. providing template: _("active {user_name}" (so also the ordering will be correct if languages want different ordering).
Then you may need to change code and template into _("active {first_name_feminine}") and _("active {first_name_masculine}") (and possibly more for duals, trials, plurals, collectives, honorific, etc.). Note: check that the translator will not mangle the {} and the string inside. Usually you need specific export/import scripts. Or I add a note inside the string, and I quickly translate into English removing the note to the translator). Also this can be automated (be creative on using special Unicode characters which should not be used in normal text, to delimit such text).
But if you cannot know the gender, the Actif(ve) may be the polite version used in such language. You need a native speaker test, and changes back and forth.
I'm using the places api to search for places and quickly copy the some customer information into the front-end of my application.
But sometimes, the name gets translated to English, which is not desirable for the user. How can I avoid the translation of certain places?
For instance: Krankenhaus Göttlicher Heiland will be translated to: Hospital of the Divine Savior. It kinda sounds cool, but it's not what the user wants... :)
I know it takes default my browser settings and that you can add language on in the parameters, but I want to turn that off completely. So get the original native names.
Any idea?
What are the steps to develop a multilingual web application?
Should i store the languages texts and resources in database or should i use property files or resource files?
I understand that I need to use CurrentCulture with C# alone with CultureFormat etc.
I wanted to know you opinions on steps to build a multilingual web application.
Doesn't have to be language specific. I'm just looking for steps to build this.
The specific mechanisms are different depending on the platform you are developing on.
As a cursory set of work items:
Separation of code from content. Generally, resources are compiled into assemblies with the help of resource files (in dot net) or stored in property files (in java, though there are other options), or some other location, and referred to by ID. If you want localization costs to be reasonable, you need to avoid changes to the IDs between releases, as most localization tools will treat new IDs as new content.
Identification of areas in the application which make assumptions about the locale of the user, especially date/time, currency, number formatting or input.
Create some mechanism for locale-specific CSS content; not all fonts work for all languages, and not all font-sizes are sane for all languages. Don't paint yourself into a corner of forcing Thai text to be displayed in 8 pt. Also, text directionality is going to be right-to-left for at least two languages.
Design your page content to reflow or resize reasonably when more or less content than you expect is present. Many languages expand 50-80% from English for short strings, and 30-40% for longer pieces of content (that's a rough rule of thumb, not a law).
Identify cultural presumptions made by your UI designers, and try to make them more neutral, or, if you've got money and sanity to burn, localizable. Mailboxes don't look the same everywhere, hand gestures aren't universal, and something that's cute or clever or relies on a visual pun won't necessarily travel well.
Choose appropriate encodings for your supported languages. It's now reasonable to use UTF-8 for all content that's sent to web browsers, regardless of language.
Choose appropriate collation for your databases, or enable alternate collations, if you are dealing with content in multiple languages in your databases. Case-insensitivity works differently in many languages than it does in English, and accent insensitivity is acceptable in some languages and generally inappropriate in others.
Don't assume words are delimited by spaces or that sentences are delimited by punctuation, if you're trying to support search.
Avoid:
Storing localized content in databases, unless there's a really, really, good reason. And then, think again. If you have content that is somewhat dynamic and representatives of each region need to customize it, it may be reasonable to store certain categories of content with an associated locale ID.
Trying to be clever with string concatenation. Also, try not to assume rules about pluralization or counting work the same for every culture. Make sure, at least, that the order of strings (and controls) can be specified with format strings that are typical your platform, or well documented in your localization kit if you elect to roll your own for some reason.
Presuming that it's ok for code bugs to be fixed by localizers. That's generally not reasonable, at least if you want to deliver your product within a reasonable time at a reasonable cost; it's sometimes not even possible.
The first step is to internationalize. The second step is to localize. The third step is to translate.
In general how does one test a various parts of a GUI? What are good practices? (Yes I am being overly general here).
Let take for Notepad's Find dialog box:
Notepad's Find dialog box http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/5483/imgp.png
What are some things that can be tested? How does one know its working correctly? What are edge cases to look out for? Stress tests?
Here.
I doubt any good generalization can be made about this - it always depends on the situation.
When someone asks for tests for GUI I always assume that that mean 'this part of application that is accessible via this GUI'. Otherwise it would mean testing the only the GUI without any logic hooked. Dunno why no one never actually asked for testing if the events are fired when button is pressed or is displayed window acquiring focus.
Anyway back to the question. First of all find out about equivalence classes, boundary conditions other testing techniques. Than try to apply it for given problem. Than try to be creative.
All those should be applied when creating following tests:
1) happy path tests - application acts right when given input is good
2) negative tests - application acts right when given input is bad
3) psychotic user behavior (I saw someone use this term, and I find it to be great) - that one user that has nothing better to do than break your application or is to stupid to actually know how bad and horrible things he is doing with your app.
After all this if all tests are passing and you can't figure out other, than you don't know is it working properly, but you can say that it passed all tests and it seems to be working correctly.
As for given GUI example.
1)
Is the application finding string that is in opened file?
Is the application finding character that is in opened file?
How is it reacting to reaching end of file during search?
Is it finding other appearances of given string/character or just one, when there are many of those appearances ?
Is it handling special search characters like * or ? correctly?
Is it searching in desired direction?
Is it 'Mach case ' option working properly?
When opening find setting some criteria, canceling search and launching it again - are search criteria back to default values? Or are they set as you left them when clicking Cancel?
2)
Is it informing user that no mach was found when trying to search for data that is not in opened file?
Is it reacting properly when trying to search down form end of file?
Is it reacting properly when trying to search up form beginning of file?
How search feature is reacting when no file is loaded? (in MS notepad it can be done, but in other editors you can launch editor without opening a file hence this test)
Can I mark both Up and Downs search direction?
3)
Is it working properly on 4GB file?
Can I load 4 GB string in 'Find What:' field and search for it?
Can I provide as input special characters by providing ASCII codes? (it was done like pressing Alt and number of character... or something like that)
Can I search for empty character (there was something like that in character table).
Can I search for characters like end of line or CarretReturn?
Will it search for characters form different languages? (Chinese, or other non-english alphabet characters)
Can I inject something like ') DROP ALL TABLES; (if that would be web based search).
Will I be able to launch proper event twice by really fast double click on search button? (easier on web apps)
With reasonable test suite you know it seems to work correctly.
I think it is better to separate out functional aspects and the usability aspects for the GUI testing.
Let us say in the above example take the use case of user entering some text and hitting the Find button. From the functional aspect I would say your tests should check whether this user action (event) calls the appropriate event handler methods. These can be automated if your code has good separation between the GUI display code and the
functional part.
Testing of usability aspect would involve checking things like whether the display occurs correctly in multiple platforms. I think this needs to be verified manually. But I think there are some tools that automate this kind of GUI testing as well but I've no experience with them.
It's difficult and error-prone to test finished UIs.
But if you are more interested form the programmer's perspective, please have a read of the paper The Humble Dialog. It presents an architecture for creating UIs whose functionality can be tested in code using standard testing frameworks.
I have received requirements that ask to normalize text box content when the user changes the focus to another control on the same data input form. Example normalizations:
whitespace at the start and end of the input is trimmed
If the text box was made empty and this is not valid, replace the content of the text box with the default value
I have a feeling that this is not in line with good GUI design. I have read the Windows UX Guidelines for text boxes but I did not immediately find any relevant rules.
Is normalizing text box content in this way acceptable?
I have definitely seen this before (examples elude me right now) but I personally don't like it when the UI changes my input.
If the UI is smart enough to change my input on me then it should accept it as is and change the value when it needs to process it.
When the input changes auto-magically you are now forcing the user to stop and ask themselves why it changed and if they did something wrong or if the application has an error. Don't make the user think!
Generally, you should accept user input exactly has they entered it. Chances are users did it that way for a good reason. For example, imagine a user entering a foreign address, and then your app screws it up trying to format like a domestic address. At the very least, users entered the input the way they’re used to it being, so changing it can make it hard for them to cross-check it.
However, there are several exceptions:
Add defaults to incomplete input. Adding input the user left off (e.g., years to dates, units to dimensions) provides good feedback on how the app is interpreting the input that would otherwise be ambiguous. This also encourages the user to use defaults, making their input more efficient.
Resolve other ambiguities. Change to an unambiguous format if the user’s format is open to interpretation. For example, if you have international users, you may want to change “9-8-09” to “Sep 8 2009” (or “9 Aug 2009”) to provide feedback on what your app considers the month and day to be.
Add delimiters when none provided. Automagically adding standard or even arbitrary delimiters to long alphanumeric strings (e.g., phone numbers, credit card numbers, serial numbers) provides an input display that the users can crosscheck more easily. Sometimes users may enter a string without delimiters in order to go faster or because they are the victim of web abuse by sites that refuse to accept even standard delimiters.
Spelling, grammar, and capitalization correction. Users often appreciate this, but only if there’s also a means to override it. Some users like to use "i" as the first person pronoun.
If the field is used by more than one user, then you probably should automatically format the value in some standard way that accommodates the majority of your users, but that should be done when the value is stored on the backend, not when focus leaves the field. For example, if a user enters a time of 15:30 it should remain as 15:30 as long as the user views the page. However, the next time a user (any user) retrieves the data, it should appear as 3:30pm (if that’s how most of your users are used to seeing time).
Such backend formatting applies to trimming whitespace so that all users can search, find, and sort on the field consistently. It’s probably not a good idea to replace a blank value (or any invalid value) with the default because users are unlikely to anticipate getting that value. An exception would perhaps be changing blank to 0 for numeric fields in situations where obviously blank == none == zero, but again this probably should be done when storing in the backend, not in the field itself. If blank is ambiguous, (e.g., may mean 0 or may mean "I don't know") then the second bullet above applies, and you may want to autocorrect in the field when focus is lost.
Of course, if your users vary in how they need to have a data type formatted, then you can have different variants of the app that display the data type in different ways for different user groups, or you can make the format of the data type a user preference, but that’s really another issue.
If the user wants it, and the Stakeholder ask for it, then is perfectly safe.
Trimming is very common. and the replace is common when you are talking about filling textbox with numbers. (a 0 instead of a blank).
It's a fairly standard feature, especially the whitespace trimming. The default value replacement raises a larger flag just because it is less common.
I'm pretty sure that I've seen versions of Microsoft Office that do this - putting "pt." after a value in points, for instance. Microsoft's endorsement should be a good sign.
We have quite a few of these kind of requirement. The reason given for forcing a default value rather than a blank space is that it looks better in reports or if the client wants to see the live system. A blank looks a bit like "couldn't be bothered to enter anything". For a similar reason, we often upper-case the text for consistency as the users never use consistent formatting.