I have little experience in developing GUI for desktop applications, but I want to develop a typical GUI for creating/editing entities (e.g. Customer, Suppliers, etc.) which would be similar for many cases and would be comfortable for the users.
[* Please don't close the question. I put much effort in preparing the question and I really need help. *]
After analyzing our tasks I designed the following possible options:
1) In simple cases it is possible to solve the task by using an ordinary grid:
I.e. the workflow is: On pressing the Add button, a new row is added to the grid. On pressing Delete the user is asked for confirmation if he/she really wants to delete the focused entity instance. On pressing Save all previously made changes are saved. On pressing Close the form is closed (user is asked if he/she wants to save changes before closing).
Cons: I think such a GUI will only work for very simple cases. Editing something complex in a grid is not comfortable neither for a user nor for a developer (implementing complex editing in a grid will not be trivial I think).
2) For more complex entities the following option is possible:
The grid is used here only in the read only mode. On pressing Add a modal form for filling information about a new entity is shown. On pressing OK in that form the data is validated and if everything is ok the object is added to the grid datasource. On double clicking on a grid row the same form for editing the chosen entity instance is shown.
Cons: For every entity we will have to create 2 forms.
3) Another possible option:
The grid is also in the read only mode. When focusing a row in the grid, the fields above the grid are filled and a user can edit them. On pressing Add a new entity instance (object) is created and added to the grid's datasource, then the new row is focused, fields above the grid are cleared (binding helps here), the cursor is placed to the first field and the user can start typing.
I don't see any cons here except that maybe you will not have enough place for the grid and the fields on the same form. I like this option though I don't remember that I saw it anywhere.
I tried to ask the users of my program to help me decide which GUI is better for them, but the typical answers are "I think both options are ok" or "I don't know, you decide which one is better".
Now I would like to ask people with experience in GUI design the following questions:
1) Which option do you use usually? Maybe another one (not shown above)?
2) Would be nice if you also said a couple of words about your implementation (dataset/custom business objects/binding, etc.)
3) Which cons did you notice in my options?
4) Any advice on what I can read on the subject?
Thank you for help!
Junior1993, This is a great question, and there are many online resources that will spell out the trade-offs of each of these interaction design patterns, when to use them, and when they are most effective. You did not provide project-specific details, so it's impossible to answer those questions.
The "Work With" pattern is the foundation of your write-up, and you were asking about the pros and cons of different variations. Here is some reading on "Work With": http://quince.infragistics.com/html/PatternView.aspx?name=Work+With
All of the patterns you described are well-documented and can be modified to fit different purposes.
Your #2 pattern is "Edit-In-Place". It can also be found on the Quince site.
Your #3 pattern is "Two-panel selector".
This one takes many forms, but it helps to preserve context while editing.
The one you did not mention was "New-Item Row". You might want to look at that one, too, and select the pattern or combination of patterns that best fits your users' goals and the content they are creating/editing.
There are other pattern websites out there, and most build on the work of Jennifer Tidwell, author of "Designing Interfaces", an interaction design classic.
Best of luck to you!
One of the window dialog of a software I'm working on looks a bit like this : (original screen-shot copied from this coding horror post, other examples available on this SO question)
The thing is that none of the options can be removed (those who can have already been), and that they must all be visible at a glance (i.e. no tabs allowed) Edit : I've added a comment explaining why tabs are not an option in my specific project.
I've tried to use colors, to add icons, but it just added to the overall feeling that someone had just dropped controls randomly using Visual Studio Form designer during a summer internship.
How can I make this dialog more user-friendly less horrifying without deleting features ?
Edit :
The GUI example I took has a lot of obvious design flaws (see those answers 1 2), but even after fixing those (which I've done on the software I'm working on), the dialog still looks pretty ugly.
Below is another example (credit). Controls are (almost) lined up correctly, appropriate controls are used, etc, but the overall result still looks terrible :
(source: judahhimango.com)
Given the constraints I think you won't have many options.
A good starting point would be to equal the alignments and control distances to increase overall symmetry with the ultimate goal to reduce visual clutter.
Examples:
The group boxes "Special" and "Running options" should have equal height.
The distances between the four buttons "Save settings" and "Exit" should be equal.
All buttons should have the same height, if possible avoid word wrapping.
Use the same height for all single-line edit boxes.
The quota label and its text field should be at the same baseline.
The distance between a group box caption and its first control should be equal (compare "Running options" to "Retrieval options")
Increase the distance between the controls in general, i.e. make the form look less dense.
Content fixes:
Use the same captions/names for the same things. For example, you use "Append to logfile" but "Overwrite Logfile
Use the same character case, sometimes it's "Only the first one", "Every Single Word" and sometimes "it is Camel-cased". Decide on one scheme and use it consequently (Sentence case and Title case are the most common)
Don't try to be cool, "Go 2 background" doesn't look very professional.
Avoid controls with unreadable shortcuts or no content at all. It doesn't help if the user has to stop on every control and think: "What does this thing do?"
Some more radical/controversal changes:
Try making the group boxes more symmetric, possibly be re-positioning them and use the same height. If necessary use two columns of checkboxes, that would still look better than uneven group boxes.
Unless it's absolutly necessary, remove the horizontal scroll bars from the two multiline edit boxes
Get rid of the "Clear" buttons. For the list box on the buttom left you have to provide some other way to delete items, perhaps make this into a multine text box, too.
Try replacing the checkbox collection with a checkable list box or a property grid.
A rule of thumb:
Imagine the lines of the bounding box of each control lengthed until it reaches the form boundary. The less different lines reach the boundary, the better. (Because correctly aligned controls produce more incident (-> less unique visible) lines)
On the use of colors and icons:
Simply adding icons and colors doesn't solve the fundamental problems such forms have. They all suffer from being overloaded with controls and adding even more only worsens the problem, because they just add more visual noise, but don't provide any more visual cues.
The problem with your examples, and the reason that they look cluttered is that there's not enough spacing between the elements. You think you're saving space by making things smaller, and putting them closer together, but it's a false economy because your eyes have to work harder to differentiate elements from eachother. Think about writing a computer vision program that had to OCR those interfaces, and the challenges you'd have just figuring out which element was which, let alone what the type says.
Regardless of what your programmer efficiency instincts might say.. it's okay to put space between your elements, and hell, it's okay to even have large amounts of completely "wasted" space too.
have a look at this
There's a clear boundary between the flower and its background. The shallow depth of field of the photography gives a clear contrast, and allows you to very rapidly construct a mental sillouette.
jungle http://www.statravelbuzz.co.uk/wp-content/jungle-taranaki-new-zealand.jpg
what's going on in this image? There's too much detail, and it's all over the place.
have a look here
http://www.papress.com/thinkingwithtype/text/line_spacing.htm
(source: papress.com)
think about what the line spacing is doing to your ability to distinguish words from eachother. What's it doing to the visual sense of clutteredness?
You can see from the type example that you don't have to give up much in terms of space efficiency to see massive gains in visual appearance.
grid systems
grid systems http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kcWOOyUoL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg
thinking with type
other reccomendations:
stop stealing sheep
elements of typographic style
the design of everyday things
the humane interface
If you've already dealt with alignment and organizational aspects as much as you can, then your problem probably is the graphic design of the controls. Heavy 3-D controls in large numbers are detrimental to the aesthetics and usability of a window. Consider editing their properties to flatten and lighten the controls’ appearance, using something I call “compact presentation.” In addition to removing the ugliness and distraction of heavy borders and backgrounds, this also allows controls to be placed closer together, freeing white space for grouping them without resorting cluttering lines and frames.
It looks something like this (after also fixing alignment and redundancy along with a little re-arrangement of groups):
(source: zuschlogin.com)
If you're on WinForms, One trick I've found useful is to pack multiple-instance data in a DataGridView, and single-instance data in a PropertyGrid. Both these controls help you pack lots of information in very small space, and still give you full control over their visualization (you can add descriptions, tooltips, etc.)
The thing is that none of the options
can be removed (those who can have
already been), and that they must all
be visible at a glance (i.e. no tabs
allowed)
Sigh. I would argue that, because everything is visible at a glance, they practically become invisible in a sea of controls.
That being said, the ff (yes another list) are my suggestions:
To reduce clutter, make the overall form bigger, and all controls more widely spaced apart in all directions
Standardize the height of the controls, e.g., textboxes must all have same height, buttons all have same height, etc
Align labels with text boxes more consistently
Make the layout flow down instead: 1 column, with each group having the same width as all other groups
Set all group box names in bold to make them stand out
Put all those "wGetStart.bat" commands in a group of its own
If you really want to learn more about making it "flow", with or without getting rid of all this "visible" information, you might wanna get a copy of Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think:
Because tabs are not allowed, you can create a more grid like layout.
Adding detachable panes for related options and commands can help the user to organise them, at least. If they can be minimised/unpinned when not needed, then they can also free up valuable screen estate and unclutter the UI. See VisualStudio itself for a nice implementation.
Here's my random selection of suggestions:
make it bigger, this allows a more structured grouping by reducing the space constraint on each group
add some structure by grouping options that the user might want to combine at the same time
add meaningful headers (might require the previous item). "special", "running options", "retrieval options" don't really convey any useful information.
make sure that only options that can be combines randomly are checkboxes (for example are "no info", "all info", "some info" really completely independent options? Same for "append to logfile", "overwrite logfile").
use appropriate controls (spinner for number entry, file selection dialog for files, radio buttons for mutually exclusive items, ...)
deactivate controls that make no sense with current configuration (for example custom directory text field).
move all actions to a single place
hide the scrollbars unless they are actually needed (i.e. reduce visual clutter)
be more consistent (why is it "running options" and "retrieval options" but not "special options"?)
One thing that you may have, but is obvious for the WGET example is the use of a main menu, e.g. File, Edit, Tools, Help. And also a button bar too?
First, define a hierarchy of control blocks. Even if everything must be visible, I think that some functions are more important than others. Also, make a clear separation between functions that apply to the domain (e.g., Start wGetStart.bat) and functions that apply to the software (e.g., Save settings).
Second, organize the layout according to this hierarchy: most essential to the top and to the left.
Third, let your design breathe. Space is fundamental for defining content.
Since no one has said this yet, I will: your window isn't really all that bad. Yes, it's ugly, and yes, I would be personally embarrassed to admit that I designed an interface that looks like that.
However, this window only produces a negative reaction the first few times you look at it. Once a user has used this form a couple of times, they will stop seeing it as a random collection of controls and instead start perceiving it as an interface that lets them see every piece of information that they require at a glance and that lets them do everything they need to do with a few mouse clicks.
It's a dialog for setting a bunch of options, and it's probably perfectly functional and not a big deal at all for your users. You could put a lot of work into some weird, fancy-schmantsy replacement UI that might impress the StackOverflow code-noscenti, but we don't pay your salary.
Now, the second window - that's a piece of crap.
Without knowing both the content your application and what it currently looks like, I can only guess at the problems you are facing, but here goes.
You say that this is being used by traders. While I have never dealt with that segment of the market I have often dealt with executives who need very specific information to run their businesses and the first cut of the application almost always looked like what you have displayed.
The original solution back in the day was to build a very light custom interface for each user of the application focusing on only the information relevant to that person. More recently the move has been toward making the interface customizable by the end user.
Chances are that none of your users are using all of the information presented to them. Each of them is using only a small subset. But each user is using a different subset. Try building the software so that each user can display only the information that they will be basing their decisions on.
Aside from other much-needed changed, adding a banner (displaying the company logo or something like that) seems to improve the overall appearance of the dialog.
I know it's a pure waste of space but it seems to improve the global feeling about the window.
alt text http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3423/wget.jpg
Duplication - they might all have to be available instantly, but they could be available elsewhere as well. So you can have a keyboard accelerator, menu option, detachable panel, tabbed area ...
So this existing form could be the main, default interface (albeit improved with some of the other good design tips in other answers), but why not create an "expert" panel which can be a lot neater and try to work your users on to that, and away from this old "do everything" blotter.
I would really consider evaluating the usability goals of your project. Figure out what users want to do most frequently and most consistently with your application and default to that.
You should consider a wizard for this UI. Guide the user through a set of screens for the first use. And move many of these features as configurable options preferences.
Usability is not merely aesthetics IMHO. It is about making clear what the app is intending to do. I would refactor this app to provide shortcuts to common options patterns. If 90% of the time I am going to use a specific configuration of options why do I need to see every feature enumerated in the UI 100% of the time? It is just unnecessary clutter. Sensible defaults powerful configuration that is the goal. You don't have to sacrifice features, in a sense not making me think is a feature, perhaps the most important feature.
With respect to your specific app I would rework it with two basic screens a clean default screen and an advanced screen. Add the ability to create shortcuts to common configuration sets on the default screen. A simple button that maps to a specific configuration set and asks me for a url. And if the user needs to tweak an option present them with the advanced screen but treat it as preference configuration screen that saves the preference out to a shortcut button. If I want to use the configuration more than once let me save it as a custom bookmark or option on the defaults screen.
This is one of the things OS X does really well. There is a lot of power and customizability in OS X, "hidden features" if you will. But the OS defaults to sensible and straight forward options. Provide tools to the power users but don't clutter the system for the first time or casual user. This is not sacrificing functionality, it is effectively organizing functionality.
That is my first suggestion. But if absolutely don't want to hide options, I would make this a long scrollable vertical list organized in clear steps with explanation for each step:
Step 1: Provide URL ______________
Step 2: Configure Hosts _____________
Step 3: Configure Retrieval Options:
() option
() option
() option
() option
And so on...
At each step provide some context to the meaning of the configuration options.
The advantage to this is that you can clean up the UI aesthetically and provide useful configuration hints. I don't know what "Empty wGetStart.bat" means. I presume this empties a batch file of some sort. Provide me an explanation so that I know whether I want to click that button or not. And then let me hide explanations under a collapsible menu if I use the interface regularly.
My two cents.
This may not be appropriate, but...
Hide all the options in a stylesheet, much the way that all the paragraph formatting options are hidden in a word processor. Most of the time, the user just picks a named style. When the scary stuff is necessary, a click of an 'Advanced' button can grow the form to show all the options at a glance, to allow a few to be overridden, or to allow new named styles to be defined.
Obviously, a major advantage is that if there are a few particular configurations that are regularly used, it's trivial to switch between them and there's very little risk of accidentally setting one of the options wrong.
Another option - don't have all your options on display, use tabs or a wizard or whatever. Instead, have a text list of all options currently set (or all options in non-default states or whatever) to get the at-a-glance visibility.
These could be combined, so that your summary display says something like "like <style name>, except for ...", based on the style that's least different to the current options.
In a comment you say that a user "HAS to have all information available at once". Does that mean they have to see all the checkboxes and frames and scrollbars at once, or just the information?
For example, instead of having a multitude of checkboxes for option 1, option 2, option 3, etc, in the main GUI, only show the selected options and give the user a way to open a configuration window when they need to change something.
Instead of this:
+- Feature Set X - +
| |
| [x] option 1 |
| [x] option 2 |
| [ ] option 3 |
| [x] option 4 |
| |
+------------------+
show this:
feature set x: option 1, option 2, option 4 [configure...]
This lets the users see all the selected options without having to take up valuable real estate for all of the widgets necessary to change the values.
(apologies if the ascii art doesn't appear right -- it looks right in a fixed font :-\ )
An interesting article on this topic:
Managing UI Complexity by Brandon Walkin.
In the second example I would remove most of the arrows from the right hand side box. I would add the ability to click and drag to change the number(if your users are used to that I know several 3d packages that do it so it wouldn't be uncommon in relation to the example). You can change check boxes to buttons with backgrounds that change color or stay depressed when clicked as another option to reduce visual clutter.
In the right hand side box there are two or three separate functions mixed together that very well could get their own tab. When you are working with an object's color and texture you aren't going to be changing its size and view aspect ratio so having them right there means they are in the way. At the very list they need to be rearranged to be in some sort of logical order right now they are all over the place. Texture and color(things that effect color) should be together. Position rotation and view(things that effect shape\size) should be together.
It has already been said, but without seeing your application we can't give you a concrete answer on how to make your dialog less horrifying. If you can't post screenshots, then the best advice I can give is to hire a designer to help you work on the graphical end of your application; otherwise all you will get are general guidelines here.
Some things that might have not been discussed:
Think about the users of your applications and the systems that they run. I believe that most stock traders will have large dual monitor setups, so you can probably make your dialog larger and add space between your controls to make it look less cluttered. You should research your audience and see what they use.
Are you using the best controls for the job? In the first screenshot you posted I noticed a few controls that could be changed:
a. Under "Running Options" I see three checkbox options called All Info, No Info, Some Info. If only one can be selected at a time then maybe they could be changed into a drop down selection menu. Also under the same "Running Options" there is Append Logfile, Overwrite Logfile, which again you can convert to a drop down menu since you can select only one.
b. The two text fields where you can put in hosts, can probably be combined into one gridview with three columns. The first column is the host, the second is a checkbox for Accept, and the third is a checkbox for Reject.
By simply using different controls, we can still see everything we need but have less controls on the application.
Again, like I said above, witout seeing YOUR applications I can't really give you any specific suggestions.
Hope this helps.
In a project I'm working on, we have a nav menu where items are colored when the relevant section has information beneath it, or faded when there's nothing available to the user. In the case of an admin, these items may have no useful information but may still be clickable (since things like "Add news item" or "Add file" are implemented as sub-menus).
The call from On High has come down to make these admin items stand apart somehow. Since we're already using the faded text for unclickable items, I was wondering if there's an established UI convention for denoting that an item is clickable, yet contains no information.
And yes, I've already asked why we're bothering to show items that aren't available to the user. The short of it: because On High wants to.
Short answer, no I don't think there's a convention for this. Lots of people would say if its not applicable, don't show it. However, there's some debate on this. One of the reasons Microsoft started using The Ribbon in MS Office is because they wanted to get away from dynamic menus where options hid and showed 'intelligently'. Users couldn't figure out the rules for what appered where, and when.
Maybe separate the concerns here: 1) how to indicate the item is clickable, and then 2) how to indicate the item contains no information.
The first one is relatively well established -- blue underlined text. You can also make it look like a button Of course, if you've got a site-specific look for your hyperlinks, use that. Basically don't break the users' expectiations of what things are clickable.
Second, how to show there's nothing there worth clicking on. I think what you want is some visual indication of the priority/utility of these admin links relatively to others. Some options:
Can you move the admin links to the bottom of a list?
Add a number indication how many things are on the other side of the link?
Strikethrough on the text?
Since there are no hard-and-fast conventions on this sort of thing, just remember that anything you do which is consistent will work. Some things will just work better than others.
No matter what you choose, the user will learn after a few tries what the new method of empty indication is.
If it is well thought out and consistent, they will probably get it after a couple of clicks.
Also, remember that too many highlights, colors, fades, and underlines will wash out any amount of effectiveness at visually organizing your menu so it is easy to use. At some point it can actually get harder to use by over-organizing things.
Think about it this way: There are two boxes sitting on a virtual shelf. One is red and the other is blue. The selected box is identified by a differing color than the other box... Now, which is the selected box?
I need a user interface that allows users to sort a table according to multiple columns (e.g. sort by color and then price within color, or alternatively price and then color within price). The only such interface I'm familiar with is the dialogue box found in Excel under data > sort, but this is rather clunky and does not yield itself to quick switching between views. I would much prefer an iTunes-style interface that allows quick sorting by clicking on column headers. However, such interfaces typically only allow sorting by one column (an exception is iTunes itself which has a very limited, apparently hard-coded ability to sort by "Album by Artist" and "Album by Year" by clicking on the Album header).
I can envision an interface where each column header has some numbers, such that clicking on 1 makes the column the primary sort key, clicking on 2 the secondary key, and so on. Alternatively, clicking (or right-clicking) on a column header could bring a drop-down menu with "primary sort", "secondary sort" etc. However, I've never seen such an interface implemented, and I don't have a good intuition of usability issues that may arise.
Are there applications that allow sorting by multiple columns using the column headers? Would you be able to point me to these? Are there any useful usability results regarding such interfaces -- which work better, which less so?
Also, while I am mostly interested in the specification of the interface, any hints to pass on to the people implementing it would be appreciated, e.g. publicly available libraries that provide parts of a solution (especially Java).
Edit: Two people have suggested using an Excel-style dialogue box. This is not going to work. For my application, users need to find the "best match" among existing table entries (which is often not a perfect match). The table is too big to keep in your head, so you need to keep scanning the relevant parts, and it's useful to repeatedly sort the table in order to get multiple views. Having to go through a dialogue box with multiple options for each change of view is just too slow; by the time you're done with the box, you've forgotten the results from the previous view.
I think Outlook supported sorting by multiple columns. After you clicked a columnheader, you would then shift-click additional column headers. I no longer use Outlook so I can't verify this. Hopefully it will be a starting point for you.
I've seen the shift-click interface that caparcode mentioned in a few applications, however I can't name any right now. Here's a nice web-based example though.
I would suggest using a Ctrl-Click (or Shift-click or whatever-click) approach to let the user select multiple columns. Clicking without Ctrl will just sort by the selected column, but holding the Ctrl-key adds the column to the sorter. Clicking again changes the direction. And give a feedback about the current sorter(s) similar as in these pictures. Most of the time the users will only use the single column sorter anyway, only advanced users will want to sort by multiple columns. But you should have the behavior documented somehow in the manual and in the "did you know" thingy.
But since users don't read, there is the risk that nobody will find the feature. But for this maybe you could have a feature like Windows when first started wanting you to click the start-button once to ensure you found the button. When you see the user not using the sorter at all, show him that clicking the column header will sort. Later, when you see he's not using the multi sort feature show him once that the feature exists.
Do it the way Excel does, or rather the way real people use Excel, which almost never involves that clunky dialogue box which you rightly wish to avoid. Basically, Excel preserves your current sort order as much as it can - so if you currently have it sorted in descending order by price, and now you sort by color (using the A-to-Z button on the toolbar*, NOT the dialogue box), the prices within a color will remain in descending order.
This approach does require a bit of reverse thinking from the user, because you sort first by the least important column, but it is very intuitive once you get it. (Yeah, I know, that sounds self-contradictory, but I don't know how else to describe it.)
To implement it, you'd have to store the user's sorting history somewhere; but as far as the interface is concerned, all you'd need is an up arrow and a down arrow in each column. Or, if you only want to allow A-to-Z sorting, just make the column headings themselves into links or buttons or whatever.
* Yes, I know the default Excel toolbars don't have A-Z and Z-A as separate buttons anymore, but one of the first things you do with a new installation of Excel is customize the toolbars to add these as well as Paste Values, right? Right?
How about the following? A single droplist labeled “Sort” in top margin of the table. The dropdown lists all fields to sort. Each field appears twice, once for ascending and once for descending sorts. Beside the dropdown is a button labeled “More” or perhaps simply “+”. The user chooses the field for the primary sort key from the dropdown. The sort is instantly applied (no “Sort” command button). If a secondary sort key is desired, the user clicks the More button and another dropdown list is inserted and opened for the user to select the second key. Additional lower order keys may be added with successive clicks of the More button. Dropdowns each include a “Clear” item to delete a key.
This makes a compact, simple, and uncluttered UI for the simplest and most common case of a single sort key (unlike Excel’s Sort Dialog or having numbers to the column headers), while also supporting the sorting an indefinite number of keys (again unlike Excel’s Sort Dialog). The user can see the sort order at a glance (unlike Excel and more easily than with numbers in the columns). It avoids the clunkinest of a dialog box.
Clickable column headers is a de facto standard that is also a good idea to include along with the above. It’s good practice to do what Outlook and Windows Explorer do and make lower order keys out of former sort orders. So, for example, if the table is sorted by date and the user sorts by category, then the table is sorted first by category and then by date. A user can thus do multi-ordered sorting by picking the lowest order sort field first and working up. However, this has poor discoverability and user may find that working “backwards” is counter-intuitive, so it should be supplemented with something like the dropdowns and More button. Relying on shift-clicking or ctrl-clicking likewise has discoverability issues.
Have you taken a look at Excel? That's a perfect example on how to sort on multiple columns.
Also, I use a detailed listview sometimes, and let the user hold the Ctrl key while selecting one or more columns to sort the info. (Clicking twice on a column does a descending sort.)
Seriously, what you want, Excel does. Why not use an interface people already know how to drive. I would suggest that. Or else you're going to either have to buy from a third party, or roll your own.
Development with Office is facilitated by VSTO (Visual Studio .NET tools for Office). It's up to you how much you want to automate Excel within an inch of its life :). It can be done.
In fact that is what I had to do. I had to read spreadsheets, extract data, convert to objects, then persist to Access (don't ask). Each sheet represents one record, and each directory represents a location, you get the idea. All done using the Office PIA Interop assemblies.
Just a thought.
While plenty of solutions exist for entering dates (such as calendars, drop-down menus, etc.), it doesn't seem like there are too many "standard" ways to ask for a time (or time range).
I've personally tried drop-down menus for the hour, minute, and second fields (and sometimes an "AM/PM" field, as well). I've also tried several clock-like input devices, most of which are too hard to use for the typical end-user. I've even tried "pop-out" time selection menus (which allow you to, for example, hover over the hour "10" to receive a sub-menu that contains ":00",":15",":30", and ":45") -- but none of these methods seem natural.
So far, the best (and most universal) method I have found is just using simple text fields and forcing a user to manually populate the hour, minute, and second. Alternatively, I've had good experiences creating something similar to Outlook's "Day View" which allows you to drag and drop an event to set the start and end times.
Is there a "best way" to ask for this information? Is anybody using some type of time input widget that's really intuitive and easy to use? Or is there at least a way that's more efficient than using plain text boxes?
I find Google Calendar's approach to be the best. Use a text box, but use JavaScript to make it sort of a drop-down for picking your time. A good demo can be found for a jQuery implementation here
I haven't implemented this on my site yet so I'm not 100% sure, but I think you also need code from this jQuery plugin here:
http://www.texotela.co.uk/code/jquery/timepicker/
Edit
The first link I posted does not require the second link's code. It is simply based off of it. To get the actual JavaScript file from the example, you can view the source of the page to find where the file is, or you can go to the URL directly
http://labs.perifer.se/timedatepicker/jquery.timePicker.js
There is quite a useful time entry tool for JQuery. It provides a 'spinner' type approach, in addition to a standard text field. It also supports the use of the mouse scroll-wheel for adjustment (as well as the traditional 'just type it in' approach) and can be configured to restrict to n-minute steps too if you like. It's pretty customisable, supports localisation and a variety of other settings, I've used it successfully in a couple of projects/demo sites.
I am a huge fan of plain language input (there was a topic on it the other day). I like the way 37signals backpack calendar let's you type things in (08/12 3pm Meeting with tom). I also like the way they handle times with their reminder system (they give you options like later today, tomorrow morning).