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
We are currently working on a new version of our main application. one thing that I really wish to work on is providing support for multiple monitors. Increasingly, our target users are adding second screens to their desktops and I think our product could leverage this extra space to improve user performance.
Our application is a financial package that supports leasing and fleet companies - a very specialised market. That being said, I am sure that many people with multiple monitors have a favourite bit of software that they think would be improved if it supported those extra screens better.
I'm looking for some opinions on those niggles that you have with current software, and how you think they could be improved to support multi-monitor setups. My aim is to then review these and decide how I can implement them and, hopefully, provide an even better environment for my users.
Your help is appreciated.
Thankyou.
Few random tips:
If multiple windows can be open at one time, allow users to have them on separate screens. Seems obvious, but some very popular apps (e.g. Visual Studio) fail miserably at this.
Remember the position of the last opened window, and open new windows on the same screen as before. However, sometimes users switch between multiple and single-display (e.g. docking a laptop with an external CRT), so watch cover this case as well.
Consider how your particular users work, and how having two maximized windows simultaneously might help. Often, there is a (fairly passive) window for reference (e.g. a web browser/help) and an active window for data entry (e.g. editor/database) that users switch between.
Do not put toolboxes/toolbars on a different window than objects they operate on (it's inconvenient to move the mouse so far).
Apple's Human Interface Guidelines for the Mac have covered window management on multiple displays since 1987, when the Mac II was introduced with six slots that could all contain a graphics card. The guidelines offer a few good guidelines that you might not think of at first when implementing multiple window support. For example, if a window spans multiple displays, which display should new windows be opened on? There's an answer around Figure 14-33 in the chapter dealing with Window behavior.
Microsoft may have something similar now for Windows developers to follow; if that's the case, check it out and follow their guidelines since you don't want to behave differently than the other apps on the system (or that your users are used to) for no good reason. However, if there are no guidelines, follow Apple's as they're fairly well thought-through and were originally developed through experimentation and research.
Please Please Please. If you remember window positions for multiple monitors. Please detect if the second monitor is connected. I have a laptop that is sometimes docked. It is very annoying when I try to open a window and it opens off screen.
It's annoying when I drag a window to another monitor, and then if the application generates a popup dialog, or spawns another window, if that popup/dialog gets displayed back on the primary monitor.
I haven't developed for multi-monitors, but I think this can be better handled if you position child windows/dialogs centered on their parent window, rather than on the desktop center (which I'm guessing is what happens in the case I describe above).
I'm going to have to a give a nod in dbkk's direction as they captured a couple of the major points that you need to remember.
Also, I would suggestion paying attention to how you use dual monitors and try to keep that in mind as you are developing. Generally you should try to avoid doing the things that applications you work do that annoy you. Also, don't assume that just because the user has dual monitors that they are going to want to work with your application on dual monitors.
The biggest thing that I would stress is keeping track of where the focus is in the application and making sure that any pop-ups occur within that region, one of the things that people seem to dislike the most is having a window pop-up in a different window then the one they are working on.
Definitely keep dialogs near where you clicked to bring them up. Remember what monitor the window is on between sessions. Be aware that if they have less monitors than the last time your app was run that you need to bring the windows back to a visible area. Provide an icon or button to switch monitors. Depending on the type of app it may be useful to be able to easily tile your app's windows on a monitor or on all.
One thing to keep in mind is that the user may have more than two monitors. My main system has six monitors, and I've run 4+ monitors on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS. Many applications--even multi-monitor utilities--will support 2 monitors but freak out over more than 2.
Applications work best when they know about where their windows are and relate to the locations of those windows. And as someone else mentioned, if you're going to remember where a window was, make sure that geometry still makes sense when the user comes back.
If the OS/window system dispatches an event related to the change of screen geometry, handle it if you're doing anything funky.
I think most applications that are well coded generally work these days.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for a tool for automated testing. I will use scripting for testing, rather than just automating, which means that it can't just send some key-presses. It needs to examine the app's window to see if it was updated correctly. The cheaper the better, with no downside limit on cost. ;-)
I need a real language, with functions, variables, loops, branching, etc., and the apps are developed in Delphi.
I need to be able to focus controls*, wait for windows to appear, search for controls/windows, send keyboard input and check that various windows/controls have changed state (e.g a button is now disabled, a text box contains the correct text, a dialog box opens, etc.).
I used to use AutoIt a few years ago and am now coming back to scripting. I wondered if there has been any new development while I was gone.
Any suggestions?
* I do not want to move the cursor to absolute coordinates in case the app's layout changes. This quote from Wikipedia explains why:
Regression testing becomes a problem with GUIs as well. This is because the GUI may change significantly across versions of the application, even though the underlying application may not. A test designed to follow a certain path through the GUI may not be able to follow that path since a button, menu item, or dialog may have changed location or appearance.
I believe you just described TestComplete by SmartBear Software.
Autoit does everything you listed. I use it for the same porpoises all the time. Also, Delphi is good in the sense that uses standard windows controls which makes it very easy to hook into.
I've had some success with sikuli, which has the advantage of being python (jython) code. It is built on top of OpenCV, and uses a full image processing engine to pattern match parts of the screen. It also contains editors and functions for screenshots, waiting on changes, as well as keystroke and mouse injection.
Something different from my other answer: PyWinAuto
It has full scripting (because it's Python), it uses control names instead of X, Y coordinates, it waits for windows and you can send keypresses. And it's free.
The downsides should be obvious :)
To automate a delphi application main problem i found was that the any testing tools (QTP with delphi addon , Test Complete , Testanywhere, autoit, sikuli) they all dont detect any Tlabels and Tlist and and other components, which for an application build in delphi forms a prominent part of the UI. Even to do func based testing we need to ultimately examine a component in the front end to see whether a func is giving right out. Even to right a script to automate we need to first be able to detect and add the object to the repository.
We have an application in which we have heavy dependency on a lot of third party components. I have tried to check feasibility with almost all the tools available in market.
The top two tools in market were of no use.
QTP with Delphi addon is of no use even in there website they have openly mentioned it wont support many classes build in delphi.
TestComplete its better than QTP where in it detects many components menu components and if i remember correctly grid etc.
Then after few googling i found
TestAnywhere which was certainly better in detecting the thirdparty build components. Only problem i found with this was that it was not detecting Tlabel classes and some components dont remember which.
When i speak of detecting components it may be partial or fully ie some tools were able to detect that there is a component at XY co-ordinates but failed to get the component classes or details (like components property name etc) without which it was difficult in automating and writing a script.
Rest all was more or less combination or subset of these above there.
Still Searching !!!!!!!!!!!
With TestComplete, if you compile your app as an open app - i.e. include their libs, it makes your app super inspectable. Great for testing, probably not best for security. Test complete was the best, it is just TOOOO expensive for my budget.
The scripting in it is great, the understanding of Delphi is great. The pricetag is just not great, especially if you are trying to get traction for GUI testing within an org, like it sounds like you are.
We are building an companion presentation that will be displayed on computer screens next to a museum exhibit. I believe the machines are going to be running OSX (no touchscreens) and the users will need a mouse at minimum.
Does anyone have an recommendations for what environment to build in (flash, air, web, cocoa, etc) that will allow us to restrict access to the computer itself? Our main concern is with people alt-tabbing, command-q'ing, command-option-escape'ing, etc etc etc. Anything that will let them exit the presentation and access the main system is a major issue.
Thanks.
OS X has support for various kiosk modes which you can trigger from pretty much any programming environment. Something Web-based seems like a good strategy since it doesn't limit you much. Opera has kiosk support (which I haven't used) as does iCab. There are also some purpose-designed kiosk browsers such as Plainview and wKiosk.
I think what you are looking for is called "Kiosk mode":
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.19/19.12/KioskModeFeatures/index.html
Also, I would avoid giving the users a mouse. Mice will get destroyed in such exhibits over time. A better option might be a touchpad. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine they will have a longer lifespan in a display. I know trackballs used to be very popular for kiosks but the ones I've seen look like specially purchased devices, not the standard Kensington ones you get at the shop around the corner...
I think one of the main causes of winrot are the sheer number of services that run at startup (and don't shut down) that phone home every x seconds to see if there is a new version of some piece of software.
Me personally, I disable every single one of them because they seem utterly useless to me. Most of the software packages that use these things, have an option to check for updates whenever you launch the program itself too. This looks way more efficient to me.
I was asking myself what the reason is for companies like Adobe and Apple to create such services that bog clients' computers down and at the same time increase the burden on their own update servers for what looks to me as very little return value for neither of them.
My client requests such a service, but I don't see any reason for it. I want to make sure I'm not missing a piece of the puzzle so I can come back with an educated opinion on why this is should or shouldn't be a desired functionality.
It's usually a desire by management to get brand recognition. It goes something like this:
Oh no. If our program just does its job, the user will never see that it's there, and they'll never find out who we are, and what a great company we are.
We need an icon in the tray; we need a shortcut on the desktop, and in the quick launch toolbar, and at the top level of the Start menu. If we could add a control panel applet, and an item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer, and an icon in Internet Explorer, that'd be fantastic.
Of course, since our program's so important, the user's going to be using it a lot. Let's add a "speed boost" program that runs at startup, that makes sure that all of our binaries and dependencies are pre-loaded in the cache.
Oh, and we'll need an automated update program, to make sure that all of these components are as wham-bam-great as we can make them.
And can you put a splash screen on that as well?
Can you tell I'm bitter?
Roger's spot on.
Plus, once an application has developed to the point where it already has all the features you could expect it to cover for its intended purpose, the vendor is stuck. They need to keep banging out exciting new versions, so scope bloat creeps in. Instead of doing one thing well and getting out of the way, we must do everything related to it. We must always be in the user's face; they must never be allowed to use software that isn't ours; they must always be interacting with our brand. And of course we must take care to always start an updater task in the background, because we added a completely unnecessary internet-facing browser plugin/toolbar/ActiveX thing that will surely turn out to have security holes.
Acquisitive software is a huge problem that is steadily degrading the user experience on Windows. And it's an arms race: Microsoft hide old application surface interfaces (deprecating the classic start menu, removing quick launch, hiding system tray icons, auto-removing inactive Desktop icons) as they become so full of acquisitive-software junk that they're basically unusable, whilst introducing new ones that "will be better". But how long until applications start "helpfully" adding themselves to the Start menu's MRU list (because you're definitely going to want to use our great software a lot!) and pinning themselves to the Windows 7 dock?
Linux is doing better here because the distros own access to the user and aren't going to put up with any of this crap. Not something Microsoft can get away with though unfortunately.
Bonus Did You Know Fun Fact: Once upon a time, Nero was a nice, elegant CD-burning tool.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I really want to know if I'm missing anything obvious in the software I'm developing.
What User Interface features that you consider important are often missing in most software?
Undo is bitchy to code, but very useful to the end users.
Save the location and size of all/any windows, so they are restored whenever the program is restarted.
Read this article on Undo from a usability expert (Aza Raskin): Never Use a Warning When you Mean Undo. Coding undo is not all that hard: examples [1], [1.5], [2].
These are some of the UI features that I often find are done badly, or are even missing:
Restoring window state properly.
Conforming to the average (non-beginner, non-expert) user's mental model.
Restricting the number of choices that the user has to make.
Restricting the amount that users have to read while using the app.
Strong consistency with other apps of the same genre running on the same platform.
A well-done Undo / Restore facility.
As somebody else remarked, context-sensitive help.
Allowing an app to be navigated without the aid of a mouse.
Good multi-monitor support.
keyboard Shortcuts
What's usually left out in UI's? Nothing! (literally. empty space). The question is better asked "What can be taken out?". When you have to think of what else your UI needs, you have already gone too far. Leaving out empty space is something UI programmers need to work on. Nobody likes feature creeping.
Remember the KISS rule.
A help menu with more than About...
Context sensitive help
Tool tips
An API and a scripting language so I can bypass the UI.
Seriously. Nothing is more tedious (and error-prone) than having to point-and-click through some repetitive process.
Right click context menu on things like tree views and grids.
We have an record management application here at work that I have to use now and then and they don't have right click on any of the documents in the treeview so you have to keep going to the bottom of the screen to mark a task as completed grrr, and no keyboard shortcuts too grrr
Consistency in your design... There are too many apps that "look" like a programmer wrote them. I can't stress enough!
Automation... Office has it, I wish more apps did.
CLI... As mentioned above, especially if it's a repetitive-wizard-type process
Templates/Presets... like Handbrake... make life easier, not to mention handy in the training process
Error/Confirm messages which don't get in the way... Unless the user needs to take immediate action, don't display a dialog. If the error is obvious, fix it for me and then tell me why
Scalable UI. With WPF this is getting easier, but it is annoying if I'm on a large monitor and I have to squint to see anything. Not to mention my click accuracy isn't that great.
UI Consistency.
I know I've been guilty of leaving out printing support in the past. I would never use it, but some of my users do.
drag and drop
clipboard
Good design.
Leave room in your dialogs so if you internationalize it, you have room for longer words (think Italian) and bigger fonts (think Chinese).
I'll add a few myself that have't been mentioned yet:
Non-modal forms that can remain open while other work is done.
Ability to view multi-windows at once (instead of tabs which show only one at a time)
Ability to have multiple views of a single window at once, i.e. split mode, or panes, or actual multiple windows into the same object.
Clean and intuitive.
Clean icons. Good icons. Meaningful icons.
I am very disappointed with a lot of icons inside applications — especially on Windows ;-)
actual consideration for the user seems to be left out quite frequently:
using terminology that makes sense to the programmer, but not the user
organizing the application's workflow for the convenience of the programmer, but not the user
not considering the user's work processes in the first place, and finding ways to help him/her eliminate steps and simplify things
Being able to use drag and drop to customise the toolbar and to be able to remove/hide unwanted toolbars without leaving an unused button whose only purpose is restore/unhide them.
Freezing the application when it's doing something that takes more than a second.
Not showing users what's happening, and not indicating how long it's going to take.
IMO, user name and password login options need work. I understand there are security concerns with each of these options. The risk-trade off is different for each application and needs to be assessed on an app by app basis.
Often forgotten or poorly implemented features include:
Remember Me
Forgot password
If you have a restrictive password policy, give me a hint as to what it is!
Range for # of characters, no special characters, required numbers or capitol letters, etc
Forgot username
If my username is not my email address, give me a hint to your username policy
Kind of too general a question. It would depend on what does the application do. One thing I see often missing from gui applications is an easy way undo mistakes and not only in the object you're manipulating but also on program UI elements. Closing some floating options panel or toolbar by mistake and then having no idea where is the thing enabled frustrates me to no end. Is it under Windows? Or under View? Was it this one? no that one is for something else entirely. Gah! what's it called?
Cycling through links and fields using the tab button.
Left click drag to highlight, right click for context menu with option to copy highlighted text. Found missing from some applications coded in Java.
Windows that snap to other windows and screenboarders. KDE and Winamp do this, and are the ones most famous for it. Why don't a whole host of other applications and DEs do this?
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
As a programmer I found it very hard to use my laptop and workstation with two different input devices, Can anyone suggest a good solution to use single mouse and keyboard to control my two machines
I am not looking for a Virtual Machine or RDP solution to see my machines in a single monitor,
Synergy.
Synergy lets you easily share a single mouse and keyboard between
multiple computers with different
operating systems, each with its own
display, without special hardware.
It's intended for users with multiple
computers on their desk since each
system uses its own monitor(s).
Redirecting the mouse and keyboard is
as simple as moving the mouse off the
edge of your screen. Synergy also
merges the clipboards of all the
systems into one, allowing
cut-and-paste between systems.
Furthermore, it synchronizes screen
savers so they all start and stop
together and, if screen locking is
enabled, only one screen requires a
password to unlock them all.
P. S.
See also how to fix Synergy problems on Vista.
What you want is a small gadget called a KVM switch (keyboard, video and mouse switch). Googling for that term will hook you up with plenty of suppliers.
There is also a neat software solution called Synergy that lets you use your cursor and keyboard input over multiple computers connected by a network.
Yet another vote for Synergy for a software KVM solution. I'm not sure about the others, but it's unique if your computers are running different operating systems. It worked very well when I had a W2k/Linux setup across 3 computers.
Synergy is great, but also give something like VNC a try: it consolidates not only the keyboard and mouse but also the screen. In my case my desktop monitor is much larger than my laptops, and I'm more comfortable facing forward anyway (not looking off to the side where the laptop is.)
There is a lag compared to using a KVM switch, but no loss in video quality.
In my experience Synergy is the best way to merge multiple monitors.
Others include:
- x2vnc
- x2x
- win2vnc
- osx2x
- win2x
... pretty much just take what OS/platform you're on, which one you want to connect to, and put a '2' in the middle. Type that into google and you're good2go.
For my linux machine I use QuickSynergy since it provides a gui for easier configuration. It also has a Mac OS version.
The best...
Synergy
I'll put in another vote for Synergy, but with a caveat - setup can be a little tricky. The first time I tried it, I could move my cursor over to another PC but I couldn't move it back. Spend some time with the documentation before you proceed.
InputDirector is better than Synergy. Here's why...
It has built-in AES encryption functionality (without requiring you to install OpenSSH) for secure transfer of input between machines.
It allows cut & paste of text and files between machines (by automatically translating to C$ and D$ shares)
Based on extensive use with a laptop, it is far more reliable and stable than Synergy when reconnecting after undocking & docking. Synergy would frequently just stop working after docking and undocking, requiring me to kill it, restart it, and reconnect. InputDirector rarely has any issues.
The configuration UI is easier to use, and has more options, than Synergy.
Lots of little things, like matching of cursor location between machines during screen-edge transitions, and overriding mouse settings of "Slave" machines with those of the "Master" machine.
Beyond that, as far as I can tell, it does everything Synergy does. There's only a Windows version, but apparently it's also Vista compliant as well.
I've used both tools extensively, first Synergy, and then InputDirector. InputDirector is just a more robust application. It has all the features of Synergy and then some, plus the key ones listed above. It's website isn't as attractive, and while it isn't GNU GPL'd like Synergy, it free nonetheless, and an oustandingly well-functioning tool.
I used to use a KVM switch, but lately I've started running all my computers as virtual machines on a single hardware platform. Each "system" is a window on my desktop!
I have a triple monitor display, and I just remote desktop into my other machines. I have 2-3 laptops on my desk at any given time, and 3 servers to administer. Over a 1 gbps connection, I have very little latency to worry about, and I can be working on three computers at once without much trouble. This may or may not help you, but I thought I would throw it in there for you.
If you mean: two machines on your desktop, a lot of places use KVM-style switches.
They come in legacy PC-style and also USB. The USB version works with Macs and PCs.
My experience is that the small desktop switches are a bargain, and if you learn the keyboard shortcuts, you'll jump back and forth without much problem.
The machine room, 3-level tree KVM's are also pretty useful. They flake out more often, but when you have 60 machines, you simply can't have 60 pairs on input devices.
I'll second Zarkonnens comment about KVM Switches as I use one for this purpose all the time. However I might share some rather frustrating experiences with them:
I have found that PS/2 interfaces tend to be somewhat more reliable on KVM switches than USB - I have had very bad experiences with some supposedly upmarket DVI-USB KVM kit from Gefen and Avocent. Due to a quirk of my Viewsonic monitor where it would drop back to analog most of the time these were exacerbated to the point of the system being nearly unusable.
DVI and USB are finicky. DVI monitors will often time out and sleep if they get no signal. The KVM switch will assume that there is no monitor if it is not active, which will then be passed back to the video card. USB interfaces will also get put to sleep randomly.
The net effect of this was that it was very difficult to get two machines to boot up and work on the KVM switch and the switch would lose keyboard or mouse input on one or both machines every few days. This was followed by an hour or more of trying to get all of the hardware to come up and play nicely. I got the same issue with the Avocent and Gefen switches on several different machines.
My older Belkin VGA/PS2 kit worked fine with the Viewsonic monitors on VGA but I spent nearly £1000 on switches and cabling to try and get a working DVI-USB KVM setup.
In the end I got two HP LP2065 screens that didn't have the bug that the Viewsonics exhibited. These have two DVI inputs and I used one of my older Belkin PS/2 switches to switch the keyboard and mouse. The computers are plugged directly into the monitor and the monitor's input selector is used to pick the computer. The keyboard and mouse are switched off the KVM switch. This is the setup that I'm using today.
The monitors and KVM have to be switched individually but it's much more reliable than the DVI-USB KVM switches that really did not work at all. Caveat emptor.
You should also check out Multiplicity from Stardock.