New iteration of UI Options wireframes

Allison Bloodworth abloodworth at
Fri Jan 23 17:47:49 UTC 2009

Very nice work Gary! I have just a few comments:

Re: #1, I would agree that radio buttons make more sense here, as I  
think it is less ambiguous. Additionally, it follows the format you  
use other places, Like "Table of Contents" in "Easier to Find."

In the "Easier to Find" section, the header includes the word  
"Actions" and I don't see a corresponding section below it. Also, I'm  
not really sure I know what "Inputs" are (input fields?).

in the "Easier to Control" section I can imagine a little confusion  
about how to activate the shortcuts. While I understand why you've  
done it this way (to display good defaults), if a shortcut has been  
filled in it seems like it should be active and shouldn't have to be  
checked too. What if the shortcuts only became editable when the boxes  
were checked? This may not be ideal either if we want to show users  
the shortcuts are editable -- so maybe there is a different solution?

In the "In my Language" section, I think it would help clarify things  
to make the label "Text Alternatives" as it is on the header.  The way  
it is now, it almost seems like users are being given alternatives to  
having the language of the site be in English.


On Jan 23, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Gary Thompson wrote:

> #1 - What is the desire for using a checkbox instead?  For a  
> preference where the options are Yes or No, the radio buttons with  
> explicit yes and no options seems to be a better interface than  
> having only a checkbox for Yes, where the user has to assume that  
> unchecking means No.  I suppose the label could be switched to Use  
> (or something similar) instead of Yes, which might make more sense  
> with a checkbox, but why the checkbox?
> #2 - Thanks for reading my mind Jacob.  I am assuming that no one  
> will want to make the text spacing less than 100% ("normal"), where  
> the slider handle is flush left because that is the minimum value.
> Gary
> Jacob Farber wrote:
>> +1 for Justin's point #1
>> On #2 - from what I understand, the text spacing being flush to the  
>> left makes sense in that 100% would be "normal", and that anythnig  
>> less would pretty much make the text unreadable.
>> Or am I misunderstanding it?
>> Jacob
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Justin <justin.obara at <mailto:justin.obara at 
>> >> wrote:
>>    Hi Gary,
>>    Thanks for posting the updated wireframes.
>>    Just a couple of suggestions/questions, that are both minor.
>>    1) could we use a checkbox instead of two radio buttons for the
>>    Background Images option
>>    2) This may just be because it is an illustration, but the Text
>>    spacing slider is all the way to the left and at 100%, while the
>>    minimum text size is at 12pt and almost to the left. I would
>>    assume that the left would be the low end and the right the top
>>    end. In the wireframe it appears as though the sliders have max
>>    and min on opposite sides.
>>    - Justin
>>    On 22-Jan-09, at 6:29 PM, Gary Thompson wrote:
>>        Please pass on any feedback you have.
>>        Gary
>>        _______________________________________________________
>>        fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
>>        <mailto:fluid-work at>
>>        To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>        see
>>    _______________________________________________________
>>    fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
>>    <mailto:fluid-work at>
>>    To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
>>    see
>> -- 
>> Jacob Farber
>> University of Toronto - ATRC
>> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>> <>
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see

Allison Bloodworth
Senior User Interaction Designer
Educational Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(415) 377-8243
abloodworth at

More information about the fluid-work mailing list