Tough words about GUI

[admin]

As for the purpose of tweaks, my understanding is that they are either experimental, or user-requested but obscure and/or unconvincing to Don. I wouldn't expect tweaks to change in nature.

That's a bingo!

[PeterH]

As for the purpose of tweaks, my understanding is that they are either experimental, or user-requested but obscure and/or unconvincing to Don. I wouldn't expect tweaks to change in nature.

That's a bingo!

I'm afraid something that's not too easy to differentiate (in wording) is mixed up in this thread.

If an option that only can by changed by edit of .ini is a "tweak", and tweaks are "kind of experimental", then zer0s wish to delete options from configuration dialog makes them experimental.

So we have (at least) 3 Levels:
- basic, often "used" options
- special, more seldom used options, but still "productive"
- "real" tweaks, only to be changed change by editing .ini

For me it's no question that there are options belonging to the 3rd group. But I think most people in this thread are talking about the second.

[admin]

I'm reading this thread but only with low interest.

1. It's impossible to make assumptions about which settings are important and which are marginal. Users differ.

2. Changing the organization of the Configuration dialog would be an extreme and time-consuming effort for me, since also the documentation (Help, Website) would have to be rewritten. Forget it, save your energy for other things.

[PeterH]

No problems with it as it is - just wanted to differentiate a bit between different interpretations of what has been written.

I *would* have a problem if more options were changed to edit-only.

[zer0]

1. It's impossible to make assumptions about which settings are important and which are marginal. Users differ.

That's why usage statistics are important. Let the numbers do the talking as opposed to making assumptions.

2. Changing the organization of the Configuration dialog would be an extreme and time-consuming effort for me, since also the documentation (Help, Website) would have to be rewritten. Forget it, save your energy for other things.

Well, if an agile approach was adopted in the first place then the situation won't be such a mess now

[admin]

1. It's impossible to make assumptions about which settings are important and which are marginal. Users differ.

That's why usage statistics are important. Let the numbers do the talking as opposed to making assumptions.

2. Changing the organization of the Configuration dialog would be an extreme and time-consuming effort for me, since also the documentation (Help, Website) would have to be rewritten. Forget it, save your energy for other things.

Well, if an agile approach was adopted in the first place then the situation won't be such a mess now

1. The majority of my users do not participate in the forum.
2. There is no mess. Polemic and suggestive talk will bring you nowhere.

[zer0]

1. The majority of my users do not participate in the forum.
2. There is no mess. Polemic and suggestive talk will bring you nowhere.

1. I wasn't talking about forum users. I am referring to usage statistics created by the application itself. Along the lines of Microsoft's Customer Experience Improvement program.
2. There is a mess. The amount of configuration options presented is overwhelming, logical presentation of some elements is broken whereas a lot of others are done in user-unfriendly manner. If that's not a mess, I don't know what is.

[Trasd]

1. The majority of my users do not participate in the forum.
2. There is no mess. Polemic and suggestive talk will bring you nowhere.

You could always add an item to the Help menu called "User Feedback" or something, though I have my doubts as to whether or not this would do any good (though zer0 said this is not what he was talking about).

Personally, if I were to enter this discussion, I would suggest there be a "Regular" and "Advanced" user setting somewhere (maybe this one setting should be changeable in the INI file only, that way only advanced users would know enough to set it) that would allow advanced users to have access to a table-type format for editing all options, in addition to the regular options method.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not entering this discussion...

[Jerry]

Don,
What do you think of my proposal to address the configuration issue: http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 237#p65707

[admin]

Don,
What do you think of my proposal to address the configuration issue: http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 237#p65707

Not much: I stopped reading at "Keep only the most important, commonly used...". This is a naive view of the user base. Users differ.

And, BTW, and don't even see a problem. My mind is somewhere else. Configuration is good enough for me.

[zer0]

You could always add an item to the Help menu called "User Feedback" or something, though I have my doubts as to whether or not this would do any good (though zer0 said this is not what he was talking about).

Expecting users to provide that information manually is wishful thinking, it's not going to happen. Such collection needs to take place automatically with users' consent.

Users differ.

Doesn't mean you have to try to be all things to all people. Are you asking tough questions like "do you really need that feature, command, or option"? I don't think so. This is well worth reading: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511335.aspx

[Trasd]

Such collection needs to take place automatically with users' consent.

Agreed - but I am agreeing on the method, not the necessity of collecting the information. That's a call I think Don has a good handle on - trends and usage habits change. Personally, I think it is an all or nothing proposition - you cannot selectively decide what should or should not be added to an option change system.

This would be my position, if I were to enter this discussion.

[zer0]

Such collection needs to take place automatically with users' consent.

Agreed - but I am agreeing on the method, not the necessity of collecting the information. That's a call I think Don has a good handle on - trends and usage habits change. Personally, I think it is an all or nothing proposition - you cannot selectively decide what should or should not be added to an option change system.

Usage habits don't change often. Humans are creatures of habit. As for deciding selectively, you absolutely can. Throwing up a bunch of options out there and saying "Here, you configure it how you like" is a bad approach. People want to use software, not tinker with it or learn a bunch of things.

[eil]

Usage habits don't change often. Humans are creatures of habit. People want to use software, not tinker with it or learn a bunch of things.

that sounds kinda nonsense does any new program anyone tries responds to all habits of one? of course not, and even if user can change some settings to those one used to, some features are new and need to be accommodated to/to be learned. yet, if it was really so, that people put their habits so high, why would they try new soft at all?!(if it almost surely "out of their habbits")- they would just use that old one, where their habits formed from.
habits, as what people are used to, same as scripts = written once but not forewer, easily/automatically used, editable if needed.

[PeterH]

I tried to explain before - I'll try with other words:
XY is, from base, designed to meet all my habits, so I never have to change anything.
(Just forget all these option-tweaks. )

Oh sorry: that wasn't quite correct, I'll try again:
My habits are so that when XY doesn't meet some of my habits I search for an option to change that - but I never search for a tweak.

OK: the last one was a bit better