(Another) Inline Edit demo design
jhung at ocad.ca
Mon Oct 4 15:15:08 UTC 2010
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 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:
> 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
> (let's just avoid writing "click the bold text to edit" in bold, ;))
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Jess Mitchell <jessmitchell at gmail.com>wrote:
>> 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?
>> 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...
More information about the fluid-work