(Another) Inline Edit demo design

[Jonathan Hung]

Thanks for the quick feedback everyone!

1. I've already added the instructional text to the wireframe.
2. Remove the tags text. AC, you brought up some interesting points and it's
a common stumbling block for editing tags. This is an inline edit demo, not
a demo for tagging (which is a whole different design issue all together :).

Anyone else with thoughts?

- Jonathan.

---
Jonathan Hung / jhung at ocad.ca <jhung.utoronto at gmail.com>
IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher
Fax: (416) 977-9844



On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, James William Yoon <jyoon at ocad.ca> wrote:

> 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: <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20101004/434555d2/attachment.htm>