So we're re-designing a desktop application so that it's also usable with thye Touch Interface with Windows 7. We've consulted the UX guidelines.
For some part of the UI, there are toolbox icons that are disabled because of some arcane rules (the software communicates with a hardware device). We disable the actions that aren't applicable (because of some condition) and let the user hover the mouse on the tool icon to see the tooltip explanation on why that tool is disabled.
Since there is no "hover" for the touch interface (windows 7, iphone, ..) what is a better pattern/model for this?
Thanks!
Not an official solution but here's how I'll approach this until a better solution is available:
Make the item look disabled but still be clickable.
Add an overlay icon (of a question or similar) so it looks more than just disabled.
When clicked, display the message that would have been in the tooltip. Preferably in a non modal way and that doesn't require acknowledgement.
One option is to leave the control enabled and show a message when it is clicked to say why it won't do anything. However as stated in 'Disabled Menus Are Usable' this throws away valuable information for an experienced user (although this is less of an issue for icons than menus as there are usually less icons to go through than menus).
Another possibility is to provide a control like the click for help tools that were popular a few years ago. The user would first click on the 'why is this disabled' control, then click on the control that is disabled. This is however a rather clunky solution.
Another problem with toolbox icons on a touch interface is that the tooltip text is often essential as it is often impossible to convey complex/domain-specific actions with an icon. i would imagine many users on a touch only device will just use the menus instead as they can work out what they will do.
Related
Im writing an application for workers in our factory and one of requirements is that they should be able to take images using camera integrated in PDA with WM6.5.
The main difficulty is, that thay MUST NEVER EVER be able to enter windows, Start button, desktop etc. They are allowed ONLY to see my fullscreen application.
I succesfully deactivated BlueTooth + red, green and volume buttons (if you are interested, im pasting links here)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=546737
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb431750.aspx
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/vssmartdevicesvbcs/thread/a4f9f41d-47a8-4080-8613-2c2ddcf4c012/
And now I have to implement the camera function. But as CameraCaptureDialog opens a new dialog and shows start button, task bar and allows user to open list of applications, I must not use it.
I must create my own dialog that will show the Live Preview in a panel or in an imageBox and photo will be taken using a button.
I searched the whole internet and found only DirectShow.NETCF (but people do not recommend it) and CameraCaptureDialog.
Can I somehow redirect the CameraCaptureDialog to my dialog? Or can I access camera directly via .NET framework? Or can I modify the CameraCaptureDialog not to show Start button, menu etc?
Looks like you have a bit of a challenge. I agree that Directshow is a questionable solution, but it may be your only option. I did get http://alexmogurenko.com/blog/directshownetcf/ to work, but only on low resolutions.
A better option might be to find a device that does not show the menu bar/start button. AFAIK, the HTC HD2 has a very clean Cameracapturedialog..
Good luck.
Im about to start creating a custom onscreen keyboard for my WP7 app. An out of the box SIP will not work since they can't be customized or built from scratch with .NET.
Ideally the keyboard would activate like a SIP. Specifically, appear when the textbox receives focus. Docking to the bottom of the screen would be nice, too.
Any ideas where I could find samples of this?
Also, do you have any recommendations or lessons learned you could share?
I think you'll be making this sample ;)
The challenge with letting textbox take focus is likely going to be the built in SIP is going to appear. ReadOnly is an option, but you'll either lose or need to find a way to retain/mimic the cursor if that visual queue is important to you.
I'm from a Windows programming background when writing tools, but have been programming using Carbon and Cocoa for the past year. I have introduced myself to Mac by, I admit it, hiding from UI programming. I've been basically wapping my OpenGL code in a view, then staying in my comfort zone using my platform agnostic OpenGL C++ code as usual.
However, now I want to start porting one of my more sophisticated applications to Mac OS.
Typically I use the standard Visual Studio dockable MDI approach, which is excellent, but very Windows-like. From using a Mac primarily now for a while, I don't tend to see this sort of method used for Mac UIs. Even Xcode doesn't support the idea of drag and drop/dockable views, unfortunately. I see docked views with splitter panels, but that's about it.
The closest thing I've seen to the Visual Studio approach is Photoshop CS4, which is pretty nice.
So what is the general consensus on this? Is there are more Mac-like way of achieving the same thing that I haven't seen? If not, I'm happy to write a window manager in Cocoa myself, so that I can finally delve in an learn what looks like an excellent API.
Note, I don't want to use QT or any other cross-platform libraries. The whole point is that I want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app, leave the Windows app looking like a Windows app. I always find the cross-platform libraries tend to lose this effect, and when I see a native Mac UI, with fancy Cocoa transitions and animations, I always smile. It's also a good excuse for me to learn Cocoa.
That being said, if there is an Open Source Cocoa library to do this, I'd love to know about it! I'd love to see how someone else achieves this, and would help smooth the Cocoa learning curve.
Cheers,
Shane
UPDATE: I forgot to mention a critical point. I support plugins, which can have their own UI to display various plugin specific information. I don't know which plugins will be loaded and I don't know where their UI will live, if I don't support docking. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, specifically: How do I support a plugin view architecture, if the UI can't change? Where do I put the plugin views?
Coming from a Windows background, you feel the need to have docking windows, but is it really essential to the app? Apple's philosophy (in my opinion) is that the designer knows better than the user how things should look and work. For example, iTunes is a pretty sophisticated app, but it doesn't let you change the UI around, change the skin, etc., because Apple wants to keep it consistent. They offer the full view, the mini player, and a handful of different viewing options, but they don't let you pull the source list off into a separate window, or dock it in other positions. They think it should be on the left, so there it stays...
You said you "want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app", and as you pointed out, Mac apps don't tend to have docking windows. Therefore, implementing your own docking windows is probably a step in the wrong direction ;)
+1 to Ken's answer.
From a user perspective unless its integral to the app like it is in Adobe CS or Eclipse i want everything as concise as possible and all the different options and displays out of my way so i can focus on the document.
I think you will find with mac users that those who have the "user skill" to make use of rearranging panels will in most cases opt for hot key bindings instead, and those who dont have that level of "skill" youre just going to confuse.
I would recommend keeping it as simple as possible.
One thing that's common among many Mac apps is the ability to hide all the chrome and focus on your content. That's the point behind the "tic tac" toolbar control in the top right corner of many windows. A serious weakness of many docking UIs is that they expect you to have the window take up most of the screen, because the docked panels can obscure content. Even if docked panels are collapsable, the space left by them is often just wasted and filled with white space. So, if you build a docking panel into your interface, you should expect it to be visible most of the time. For example, iTunes' source list is clearly designed to be visible all the time, but you can double-click a playlist to open it in a new window.
To get used to the range of Mac controls, I'd suggest you try doing some serious work with some apps that don't have a cross-platform UI; for example, the iWork apps, Interface Builder or Preview. Take note of where controls appear and why—in toolbars, in bottom bars, in inspectors, in source lists/sidebars, in panels such as IB's Library or the Font and Color panels, in contextual HUDs. Don't forget the menu bar either. Get an idea of the feel of controls—their responsiveness, modality, sizing, grouping and consistency. Try to develop some taste—not everything is perfect; just try iCal if you want to have something to make fun of.
Note that there's no "one size fits all" for controls, which can be an issue with docking UIs. It's important to think about workflow: how commonly used the control would be, whether you can replace it with direct manipulation, whether a visible indication of its state is necessary, whether it's operable from the keyboard and mouse where appropriate, and so forth. Figure out how the control's placement and behavior lets the user work more efficiently.
As a simple example of example of a good versus bad control placement and behavior in otherwise-decent applications, compare image masking in OmniGraffle and Keynote. In OmniGraffle, this uses the Image inspector where you have to first click on an unlabeled button ("Natural size") in order to enable the appropriate controls, then adjust size and position away in a low-fidelity fashion with an image thumbnail or by typing percentages into fields. Trying to resize the frame directly behaves in a bizarre and counterintuitive fashion.
In Keynote, masking starts with a sensibly named menu item or toolbar item, uses a HUD which pops up the instant you click on a masked image and allows for direct manipulation including a sensible display of the extent of the image you're masking. While you're dragging a masked image around, it even follows the guides. Advanced users can ignore the HUD entirely, just double-clicking the image to toggle mask editing and using the handles for sizing. It should be easy to see, with a few caveats (e.g. the state of "Edit Mask" mode should be visible in the HUD rather than just from the image; the outer border of the image you're masking should be more effectively used) Keynote is substantially better at this, in part because it doesn't use an inspector.
That said, if you do have a huge number of options and the standard tabbed inspector layout doesn't work for you, check out the Omni Group's OmniInspector framework. Try to use it for good, and hopefully you'll figure out how to obsess over UI as much as you do over graphics now :-)
(running in slow motion, reaching out in panic) Nnnnnoooooooo!!!!!
:-) Seriously, as I mentioned in reply to Ken's excellent answer, trying to force a "Windowsism" on an OS X UI is definitely a bad idea. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Windows UI is third-party developers inventing new and inconsistent ways of presenting UI, rather than being consistent and following established conventions. To a Mac user, that's the sign of a terrible application. It's that way for a reason.
I encourage you to rethink your UI app's implementation from the ground up with the Mac OS in mind. If you've done your job well, the architecture and model (sans platform-specific implementation) should clearly translate to any platform.
In terms of UI, you've been using a Mac for a year, so you should have a pretty good idea of "the norm". If you have doubts, it's best to post a question specifically detailing what you need to present and your thoughts on how you might do it (or asking how if you have no idea).
Just don't whack your app with the ugly stick by forcing it to behave as if it were running in Windows when it's clearly not. That's the kiss of death for an app to Mac users.
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.
I have a question about the windows mobile development.
I created a mobile form on the windows mobile 6.0 test project. But that example form slightly larger than the vertically normal pocketpc forms. I now everybody said you can press the scrollbar for accessing bottom or any location of the form.
But i need to use the finger for easy navigating form areas. This kind of iphone :)
Is it possible ? how can i make this ?
Windows Mobile 6.5 adds gesture support, that is supposed to allow such functionality for finger control. Of course, your code has to take advantage of it.
You can also write your own, which isn't difficult, but still cumbersome.
My answer could be classified as subjective. I try to now show the scroll bar when possible for just that reason. On most devices that have touch screen, you can scroll using you finger (and I'm a somewhat large guy -- 6'3" with farmer kid hands).
But if you are displaying a grid, that isn't always possible. The results can go off the screen very easily. Oh well, grab a pen and hit the scrollbar.
Other screen elements that can help: tab control. separate your controls into groups and put each group on a separate tab. I also do a lot of wizards with LARGE next and previous buttons.
But in all of this, if it is designed to be stylus free, just pray the user doesn't have to type anything using the screen soft keyboard. That just doesn't work with a finger.