Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Quisp]

8. Changed: Removed button from top-right of Action Window header. (use right-click if necessary)

Is it such a good idea to hide the tools menu this way? I mean, I know where they are, but would a new user?

And I just want to add my voice to those crying out for a longer search bar. The one we have now really is all but useless. Especially when trying to edit a smartlist. It's impossible to edit a search criteria that's scrolled beyond the search bar's borders.

<rant on>
I agree with both. It is really bad interface design to hide functionality completely from the user (not an opinion, by now fact, gleaned from decades of computer-based interface design focus groups). There needs to be at least some sort of visual cue that there is functionality available within the AW header. The former icon was nice in that it was subtle, not in your face, easily ignorible, yet there when you needed it or forgot about it. What more could you ask for?

Consider the ellipsis (...) in a menu, when you see one, you know there are more options; that a dialog will appear; that an action won't immediately occur. This is a great example of a slight visual cue providing the user with valuable information at little visual "cost".

Look at the way major players like Adobe and Macromedia provide a very wide range of audiences with layers of complexity through the use of something as simple like a drop down arrow. There is no way they would hide the flexibility or functionality, for one thing, they want you to know it's there, it's valuable and they spent quite a bit of time providing the functionality. While they realize some don't need the extra functionality, instead of completely hidding it within a manual, they provide a subtle visual clue to its existance. Click on the arrow and functionality expands.

While I realize that jriver is no Adobe or Macromedia, most of these techniques are, if not proven, at least accepted standards. Why take steps back?

Maybe we should get rid of the menu bar too, it's pretty much all that is left.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of context sensitive right clicking, but I think the current need to click three or four times just to change something as integral as a list view is absurd. Just one example. Being able to csutomize the top and bottom bars has been great, but I think that more levels of functionality need to be made available.

One example, if the different views were available individually, then at least I could add two buttons: one for list, the other for Album Thumbnail, one click away. Additionally, I'd like to be able to add buttons above the list, go figure, but I'm much less confused if controls are located in the general vicinity of what they are controlling.

Making deeper levels of functionality available for customizing button bars and adding a button bar above the list view (below panes), would probably solve most of my issues with access to MC features. I could customize it how *I* want and how *I* work and if someone has a problem with single click solutions, they can remove all buttons and get a mouse with two right click buttons  

Oh, and I do not represent any icon artists....

</rant off> ...the ranter...
 

[JimH]

8. Changed: Removed button from top-right of Action Window header. (use right-click if necessary)

Is it such a good idea to hide the tools menu this way? I mean, I know where they are, but would a new user?

I agree.  I'll see if we can get it changed back.

[nila]

Quisp - NICELY presented arguements

The old location bar was the toolbar but it was never given the power it needed in terms of being able to add commands to it as buttons and now it's gone completely.

ALL the biggest name programs realise the value of buttons to perform tasks - MS Office being the biggest and best example.
But even look at photoshop in more recent versions, they added the context sensitive toolbar at the top realising that more power had to be presented to the user and shown to them even though it has always been there. Now you are just made more aware of it's presense and it is easier to access without having to always use right click menu's.

[Quisp]

Quisp - NICELY presented arguements

Thanks!

Yeah, the context sensitive menu in Photoshop was great whan it was introduced. It probably made my work better too since it put in my hands so to speak brush size controls, etc. Before, it was a pain to change the settings of a particular tool since it mean't drilling down various menus that changed from version to version. Lots of times I wouldn't bother and probably made more work for myself by not using an appropriately finessed tool.

Now, like Macromedia's property inspector, I've got ready access to properties in one place and it changes based on the tool I select. This is similar to the Action Window. What will be great will be when and if this too becomes context sensitive depending on the selected media.

Now if Adobe would just get rid of the floating pallettes and integrate their interface the way Macromedia and others have done...

[phelt]

I agree with Quisp's points re. multiple methods of reaching functionality, and the value of a subtle button. There have been a few recent discussions on this board about multiple methods for accessing functionality. IMO, it's great to have more than one method as long as all methods have the same set of options and effects. One really annoying thing about several iterations of MS Windows: 4 ways to do the same thing, with a couple of different interfaces, but only one actually makes all of your changes stick. Thank heavens that J River are better than that...

Sidenote: It's funny how many people really like the Macromedia "integrated" UI panes. I think they're a weak half-measure that locks me into a lot of space-wasting and inflexibility. I agree for the most part about the context-sensitive bar in PS. I really like the dockable dropdown tabs... it's made a program with an inordinate number of features easier to use.

[Quisp]

Sidenote: It's funny how many people really like the Macromedia "integrated" UI panes. I think they're a weak half-measure that locks me into a lot of space-wasting and inflexibility.

Hi phelt,

Not sure what you mean, but I'm assuming you know that you can customize just how much space you want to waste  

The main thing I like is the lack of floating windows. I really dislike floating windows if they are the only option. I spend more time moving them out of my way and repositioning them then I do working and since I don't get paid by the hour, I'm not too fond of this.

[phelt]

Hi Quisp,

My main issue is with forced-width panes. I wind up with panes (like the properties inspector in DW MX) taking up twice as much space as necessary for the controls they contain. Other panes get "shortchanged" in many layouts. So the floating windows work well for me - I'm very happy that I still have that option. I usually lay out my panes, save the layout, and rarely move anything around later.

btw, I lifted and modded one of your mockups in the Search Window Size thread. Attributions for the good are yours, the ugliness is all mine  

[nila]

My main issue is with forced-width panes. I wind up with panes (like the properties inspector in DW MX) taking up twice as much space as necessary for the controls they contain. Other panes get "shortchanged" in many layouts.

Glad it's not just me that finds this annoying!
It restricts the number of panes I can have in one view ALOT

[Quisp]

Wow, we must be using different software.

I have a dozen panes open at any given time, none of which have any wasted space, just the content I'm looking for. Granted, the property inspector may have "extra" space when I select an Horizontal rule or similar element that doen't have many properties. But I can't image spending the time to set up a custom window for each possible inspector window size and selecting this window set before selecting each element just so that it doesn't waste space for the second or two it takes for me to make a change.

Maybe I'm missing what wasted space is...

I have complete and total control over the width and depth of of each panel, including placement in most cases. And I don't ever have to worry about windows obscuring one another and if I temporarily "roll-up" a panel to give another more space, the other panel takes up the slack instead of creating a gap like what happens when you "hide" a pallette in Photoshop. No fussing with pallettes to get them to take up the slack, no creation of special editing window sets, very fluid.

I was expecting people to point out the utility of a multiple monitor setup and that you could move pallettes to a "pallette" monitor, something you can't do with the "forced-width" panes. Then again, with the panes the pallettes are no longer a pain that I need another monitor to allieve.

I guess one person's pain is another person's ecstacy...

Options!

[phelt]

Quisp

Gimme a screencap of your pane layout please. If I'm missing something about pane layouts in Mx apps, that would be extremely helpful to know - I use them daily.

Monitor resolution may play a part in this... I opted for a widescreen rather than a dual-monitor setup, as I use a lot of apps with timelines (audio and video editing) and never got used to the timeline being split across screens. So my moitor res is 1920x1200. This gives me a lot of flexibility, but sometimes causes issues with windows/panes which "help" me by defining their own widths.

[Quisp]

phelt,

Will do, I was going to ask you to do the same thing. I was also thinking about monitor resolution perhaps playing a role. (Of course I'm assuming that we are both using Windows PCs since the Mac version is different)

My resolution varies depending on whether I'm on my laptop, work or home PC. I use my Mac with cinema monitor for timeline stuff which is at a higher resolution.

I'll get you something by tomorrow.

Thanks, BTW: great editing job with the mock up!