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
In some application with UI, what is better (easy, friendly, etc.) to a user:
UI is static (don't depends on user state). E.g user see some button, but it's grayed out or when it's clicked, a message, that this action is not applicable right now, is shown.
or
UI is dynamic (depend on user state). E.g. user don't see buttons, that are not applicable right now. But after some action, buttons may appear/disappear.
Sorry for my French:)
In my opinion, a static GUI with disabled controls is preferable.
When some options are not visible, the user will not know they exist.
Both of those styles have their uses. Remember that you should always use the right tool for the job and that there are (almost) no absolutes in creating software.
A static UI with grayed out elements is preferable in most cases. By providing a simple non-obtrusive message (don't show a modal message box for instance) when the user clicks or tries to interact with the grayed out elements, you can train your users.
What really happens in most cases is that there is a grayed out menu and your users are left wondering what they need to fix to be able to click on that element. This is bad UI design.
A dynamic UI is also relevant if you have an extensive administration section that the logged in user should NEVER be able to use. By hiding the administration section, you avoid confusion and interface "overload" for users who will NEVER interact with the hidden interface elements.
A dynamic UI is required in applications like Adobe Photoshop. There are literally thousands of commands and menu items possible in Adobe Photoshop. The only way that any user could comprehend the interface is by hiding and showing user interface elements depending on the state of the application.
I always recommended a UI that is as unchanging as possible:
Don't surprise users
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this question, I think it is just a matter of opinion/preference.
Personally, I would expose all functionality to the user and just grey it out when it is not accessible. However, there are some situations where I would consider removing the buttons from view e.g.
Administrative options (probably don't want to expose this to users with lower priveledges)
RunOnce functionality (activating product/registering)
Reasons for this is there is no point in exposing functionality when the user is not meant to access them or if the functionality is just going to sit there greyed out forever...
Hope that helps.
If an action is not available
because the profile of the user
forbids its use do not show it at
all
If an action is not available only
because another action must first be
completed either :
Grey it out or
Leave it activated but on execution display a
message with a clear explanation of
why it cannot be executed
Make the action unavailable (by hiding, disabling, or using an error message) only if the action is logically impossible for the current state of the task, or to encode organizational rules on the actions certain users are permitted to do (e.g., privileges/permissions). Whenever possible make the user actions always available:
Use status indicators to discourage unnecessary actions, but allow them anyway.
Use verification and undo to prevent permanent damage from unadvisable actions, rather than disallowing the actions. Users may need to do something some day that is usually “unadvisable.”
Alter app design to make actions always possible in some way. For example, if a field needs to be filled out before an action can be done, prompt the user for the field, rather than disallowing the action.
Control user behavior through organizational policy, not software. Policies are easier to change when the business rules change or when there’s an exception or emergency.
Use disabling when:
The user can do something in the app to make the action available.
Availability is achieved through controls in the same window or its parent.
The user can easily figure out which control does this.
Use toggling controls rather than disabling for turning processes on and off.
Use read-only text boxes rather than disabled text boxes for data that is applicable for the current state unchangeable by the user.
Use hiding (“dynamic UI”):
For actions that are never available to the user in his or her current job.
For indicating different virtual places or things (e.g,. pages on a tab control, where each “tab” is a different place or thing). Make sure visual design is compatible with this: if you are representing different places, then make it look like different places (e.g., the way tabs do)
For swapping large numbers of controls with alternative controls.
Use layout, symbols, and text to explain unavailability, especially disabling. For example, mark your required fields; use tooltips to say why a button is disabled.
Use error messages rather than disabling or hiding when there no other means to indicate graphically or textually how to make an action available.
Further details and rationale at http://www.zuschlogin.com/?p=40.
I nearly always keep the UI static and simply disable (grey out) components that aren't applicable at this moment in time. It can be jarring to the user and confusing if components move around as you show/hiden them as the state changes.
I have seen good examples of both, and bad examples of both.
Your primary goal should be in making sure that your UI design (whatever route you choose) makes the entire process logically sensible to your intended audience.
dynamic is better if you don't want to frustrate your users
Well, that's the idea behind the latest MS Office, right? Controls that are around based on context. That, versus older versions with lots of grayed-out menus and toolbar buttons.
I worked for a number of years on control systems and in those environments, we mimicked the hardware controls (toggles, dials, buttons) that were, of course, static though not always usable. This was a customer requirement and their position was that the operator using the system expected button X to always in the same place. But from the designer and developer standpoint, I was frustrated by the cluttered UI and didn't like it when 95% of the buttons on a screen were grayed out.
I think that it will depend on your audience and the domain and customer requirements. In my shop, I make things dynamic and offer controls that make sense based on context. Typically, we don't show grayed out buttons or menu options that aren't available in the current context. Once the users recognize that they follow certain workflows and those involve particular UI elements when appropriate, they have no problems with (and probably prefer) a dynamic UI.
Less is better.
Why not do both and let the A/B testing tell you what your users prefer?
I think it's better to focus on the user productivity and on the business the software is implementing.
To show operations that does not make sense for a specific user or in a specific moment will not help, disabled or not.
For example, if you have a software that is used in several departments of an organization, each user/department will only be interested in the part of the software that implements the part of the business he is involved to. Anything else is useless for him and only will make the software experience worst. The same applies for a screen that is usefull for a user but shows useless options.
I'd suggest prototyping both and asking your users (or a representative sample) which they prefer and why.
Just to re-iterate what Mitch Wheat said really.
If you make buttons disappear and reappear depending on user actions then there is the danger that the user might think that they've done something that's broken the application.
You are also hiding actions from the user, so it will be harder for them to discover what it can do.
Disabling buttons is a well known paradigm and users will be able to see everything that your application can do and will experiment to see how to enable them.
I think it depends on what users you want to hide design for but in general I would opt for the static version. Don't forget that a user interface doesn't only provide functionality but also information. If you grey out a button you inform the user about it's state (by what he can do and what not) more clearly than removing buttons.
The remove button aproach can work for users that in general have good understanding of the system like admins. But I think you should use this with causion
Grayed out buttons are better, because then the user will know that under some situation such a function is available (and depending on the context the user might be able to guess when it is enabled), and the visual cue of being grayed out will signal to the user that the button can not be clicked, so the user will not try to click it (the problem with a message after clicking is that it comes too late - the user already made a mistake).
Whatever you choose, use constant positions of the buttons. Users often are not read text on the buttons.
Depends. But a clear and compact GUI is a nice thing to have. Why bother with 10 fields/controls you cannot change or use at all. For example on stackoverflow you have a reduced UI if you only have a low reputation, because it doesn't matter at all to the user, that one day he might be able to use them. Another thing is that controls (with borders) usual take more space than just text. If you have information, that currently cannot be changed, I would present them in a very compact text field/label. Depending on the information it even could be placed outside or far way from the form.
According to Joel - neither :-)
Both can make sense, as long as you use paradigms the users are familiar with.
The tab control is basically a dynamic UI that changes depending on the state.
Consistency is probably the most important thing when designing an UI. If buttons pop in and out, they are seen as a visual stimulus, and the user will "spend" attention looking at them.
A subtle, but clearly disabled button (not disappearing) is my preffered choice for designing UI....
.. So I guess that's option 1 :)
A combination of the two.
If a function is not applicable in the current state, disable the button but also place an icon next to the button and associate a tooltip with the icon. The tooltip should explain why the user can't use the button right now.
Attaching the tooltip directly to the button doesn't work so well. Most users won't even hover over the button as they won't expect it to do anything.
And avoid exclamation mark icons. They suggest the user has entered an invalid value (unless they actually have.)
I'd like to say I always do this, but unfortunately it does take significantly more coding time, and clients aren't always willing to pay for that.
A modal UI introduces mode errors. Always.
You currently seem to want to choose between two different ways of presenting a modal UI. From those I'd say the first one is superior (unless you really have many possible commands, see the Office 2007 UI for a good example how to handle this, but it's not common to have that many).
If you have the space and you haven't too many controls then I'd really go with disabled controls as it shows th user what is possible. Furthermore you might want to make it really clear which mode the UI is in (not just from the buttons that are enabled). I've seen user interfaces where you had disabled buttons but the user couldn't figure out what he has to do to enable them.
In any event be sure to do usability testing to find out what way is less error-prone on behalf of your users.
I like to keep all advanced options hidden under a "More >>"/"Less <<" button, or "Advanced Mode" checkbox, depending on the context and application.
Once clicked/checked, the window expands to reveal more options.
In terms of action availability though (like a Wizard featuring Next/Previous buttons) I always show them, and enable/disable them according to what functionality is possible.
The dynamic UI is done like the UI may keep changing. The fields may keep changing. So depending upon that the information of the field fetched from internet the ui is designed.
Rembr! all the similar fields have same design so u can keep changing the UI design and hence the application. without uploading the newer version of the application to the cloud or play store you can change the design of the UI.
As a example the UI pattern and fields are filled in the excel sheet and uploaded to cloud and the app has the access to download the excel sheet.
the above explanation holds good for an android dynamic app development
Related
I have used Chosen plugin in my MVC application. The chosen plugin use to work well with my site. However, I have additionally used ajax-chosen to take advantage of ajax capabilities with this framework. But this doesn't seem to be a good deal till now.
First of all, when user is presented with the filtered list of options, and if s/he presses down key (which obviously selects the first option), but after that if user presses Tab key directly then it doesn't select the item. It seems that user must have to either press Enter key or have to use mouse. This is quite annoying.
Apart from that, all the styling of dropdownlist which was looking ok with chosen seems lost in ajax-chosen.
Also, I am not sure what is coffeescript file it provides, and for what purpose. there isn't any information provided on its page over Github
Ok, I have dropped the idea of using Chosen controller, and using Select2 which is quite seamless,easy to implement, and user-friendly
I am just trying to streamline my MVC3 development approach. I use Razor in the View and was wondering what the recommendation is for easily creating more fancy UI widgets such as Menus. I would hope I could leverage some good open source components and plug them in. I do subscribe to a good 3rd party component library, but wonder whether this type of feature is best implemented via JQuery UI or old style HTML/CSS?
Many thanks.
In general, Stack Overflow isn't here to recommend tools for you. However, I will say that whether to choose a javascript tool or straight html/css depends on the needs.
It's best to work with the simplest solution that solves your problem. CSS can do menus quite well, and straight CSS menus are often the best choice. However, if you need things straight css can't do, then you need to add javascript. For instance, one problem with CSS menus is that it's very easy to "roll off" the menu and have it disappear from under your pointer. Most javascript menus add a delay that allows you to roll off for a second and get back before the menu disappears. This improves usability.
Even lots of fancy effects can be done strictly in CSS, but as with many such things.. it won't be compatible across all browsers, which is again where javascript comes into play. Sometimes the only way to be compatible across the board is with js (at least without losing functionality).
I wouldn't recreate the wheel on this one, since so many web sites already do this. If you are trying to streamline your development, I'd say use your 3rd party library or find a good jQuery plugin. You could probably easily create your own in HTML/CSS/Jquery, but it will add on to your testing later. An existing 3rd party/jQuery type of component would take significantly less time and have a lot of features you want already built in.
I'd recommend using MVC SiteMap Provider in conjecuyion with a JavaScript menu of choice e.g. SuperFish http://users.tpg.com.au/j_birch/plugins/superfish/. The menu fancy JS part part is the least important.
From the MVC point of view what I think really matters is how you manage and maintain your menu. MVC SiteMap Provider makes it really easy to build an maintain menus (can even use Attributes to make Actions appear on the menu). It can also do things like Security Trimming so if a user doesn't have permission to get to the action etc it isn't displayed on the menu.
I'd check that out.
I have a GWT app that when launched it takes you to a page with just a menu. So as a shortcut type thing I would like the users to be able to go straight to the page they want. So if the default start page is x, the should be able to say x/add and it will take them to the add page. How would I get that in gwt? Do I need a bunch of different entry points?
To accomplish this, you should use the URL's "fragment", which is the part after the #. For example, if your app is at /x, you could have a different UI displayed when someone navigates to /x#add
If you don't want to write this logic yourself, you should look into the gwt-presenter project, which was written to make MVP apps easier, but also includes an EventBus (to publish events to all corners of your app), and a PlaceManager to facilitate events being fired when the fragment changes (and to change the fragment at will).
Seems like a discussion we already had so I'll just link to the related question. Please see the answers and comments there. Basically, it might be advantageous to just interact with the History class directly, instead of introducing MVP to your project, but YMMV (I'm a huge fan of MVP myself, but it's not for everyone. Besides, I like to know the stuff "under the hood" ;))
I was looking at the Firefox Add-ons Manager UI (pictured below) and really liked the expandable list used to show settings or properties for each add-on.
Firefox Add-ons Manager http://uploads.tech-buzz.net/Firefox3Beta3ComingonMonday_859/get_addons.png
I liked it enough to want to include something similar in one of my applications. The problem is, I don't know, exactly what the control is called (it doesn't seem to be "expandable list"), nor do I know if there is an implementation available for use in my own application (so I wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.)
This isn't the first time that I've seen some cool piece of UI and wanted to incorporate it into something I'm working on, but have had no idea if I would have to design it from scratch. So I generally end up reworking my UI to use standard UI widgets to save time.
This got me thinking, is there some place that has a catalog of a bunch of UI widgets with names and what platforms/languages they are implemented for/in?
UPDATE
Turns out this control is called a Rich List Box, and it seems to only be implemented in XUL.
To answer your question, no, there isn't a universal catalog anywhere, though MSDN is as good a place as any to find definitions of most common UI elements.
The specific widget you ask about is generally called an accordian (wikipedia)
I have a custom task pane I've made in VSTO for Outlook 2007, but it needs a fair amount of screen real estate to be functional. I'd like to just take over the place of the Reading Pane, as it won't really be needed when this addon is active. It's also a really great spot since this addon relies on drag-and-drop from mail folders to this task pane, and the closer I can get it to the folder pane, the better.
Any way to replace the Reading Pane, or at least toggle it's visibility?
I dont think there is a way in OOM to do this .. I you can change the size of you region though.
I have seen it done though with add-in-express tool http://www.add-in-express.com but that may be 2 much work for you to change to that model.
Take a look at the Replacement or Replace All Form Region options. Both of these options allow to replace the display of form region.
The Replacement form region let's you build a custom first page of your own.
The Replace All form region let's you build all form pages.
These are not simple options as you must provide all Outlook capabilities the user expects. This is why the Adjoining form region option is the popular choice.
You can read more here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/dd492010(v=office.12).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/bb206784.aspx