(Another) Inline Edit demo design

James William Yoon jyoon at ocad.ca
Mon Oct 4 14:44:01 UTC 2010


Jon,

This design definitely improves the context of use--in fact, I imagine Floe
would make good use of inline edit for captioning images.

For some reason, one without explanation, I thought if we just had a Title
> and a Caption it would be even clearer.  With less text, the user has fewer
> things to click on -- and tags can be confusing.  For example, I could
> imagine an interface that allows only one tag to be entered per line, or
> tags separated by commas.  It makes things more complicated, but maybe
> that's good?
>

I think one of the primary purposes of the component demos is to teach the
use of the component, so I'm all for simpler designs. If and when we
redesign the integration demos, we can try for more intricate uses.

Also, I don't think it's a bad thing to have instructions with this
particular design. We give what we can with visual cues, but inline edit is
still, in my mind, a relatively novel interaction. Even the pencil edit
button I suggested putting in probably isn't enough for many users--there's
no accepted convention for inline edit indicators. I wouldn't bet on all
internet users being familiar with it.

So, +1 for both simplified component demo design and instructions on inline
edit.

(let's just avoid writing "click the bold text to edit" in bold, ;))

James

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Jess Mitchell <jessmitchell at gmail.com>wrote:

> Jon,
>
> I quite like this iteration.
>
> My sense about your comment below is that since the only text in the demo
> is editable, the expected interaction is more clear. For some reason, one
> without explanation, I thought if we just had a Title and a Caption it would
> be even clearer.  With less text, the user has fewer things to click on --
> and tags can be confusing.  For example, I could imagine an interface that
> allows only one tag to be entered per line, or tags separated by commas.  It
> makes things more complicated, but maybe that's good?
>
> Jess
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jonathan Hung wrote:
>
> > I am not sure if instructional text is required, or if the visual cues
> are strong enough to convey to the user that fields are editable, and edits
> are undoable.
>
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20101004/e3edba68/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list