Infusion Builder Rev 2 design - feedback needed

Justin Obara obara.justin at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 14:37:29 UTC 2011


Hi Jonathan,

Nice work so far. Here are my initial thoughts.

1) I find it a bit confusing that there is an explicit ignore checkbox for the 3rd party ones, but not for our own.

2) I'm not sure I understand why UI Options isn't considered  interactive.

3) I like how the interface doesn't feel as big as the current one.

Thanks
Justin

On 2011-01-31, at 4:42 PM, Jonathan Hung wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks to those of you who took the time to respond with their feedback! After some informal user testing and based on your comments, I've made some modifications to the way exclusions and dependencies were being handled.
> 
> If a user excluded component A, and then selected component B, it's possible that component A would become selected again (because A is a dependent of B) even though it was expressly excluded. This interaction gets more complicated as more items are chosen for download as multiple excluded items can become included again.
> 
> To help alleviate this confusion, the user's action of excluding an item is now completely separate from the dependency selection process through the introduction of an "Ignore this item" function. This way the user can express their desire to exclude an item from the download package by activating the "Ignore" option, and be confident that their preference will remain throughout their interaction.
> 
> Attached is an illustration of how this would work. The diagram shows what would happen if the user had selected Inline Edit, Progress, and Reorderer, and excluded Infusion Framework Core, jQuery, and the JSON parser from the download package.
> 
> Other changes to the design include changes to wording and adjustments to the layout.
> 
> 
> Please take a look at the image and let me know your thoughts.
> 
> - Jonathan.
> 
> ---
> Jonathan Hung / jhung at ocad.ca
> IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher
> Tel: (416) 977-6000 x3959
> Fax: (416) 977-9844
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Cheetham, Anastasia <acheetham at ocad.ca> wrote:
> 
> Jon,
> 
> I like how you've provided the feedback that a de-selected module is required in two placed: both near the module in question and near the download button.
> 
> It might be helpful for users to understand the implications of going ahead with the download anyways. Perhaps near the download button, an extra phrase or two? something like "If you proceed with this download, you may be missing some functionality. If you expect to be able to provide it yourself (e.g. if you already have a copy of jQuery), then you should be ok."
> 
> Separate thought: The warning on the de-selected module says "Required by current selection." I wonder if it would be a) helpful and b) feasible to actually specify which parts of the current selection require it. For example, next to the JSON parser module, it could say "Required by Reorderer." This might be quite helpful, but it also might be verbose in some cases, and it wouldn't be entirely straightforward to implement.
> 
> --
> Anastasia Cheetham     Inclusive Design Research Centre
> acheetham at ocad.ca            Inclusive Design Institute
>                                        OCAD University
> 
> 
> <Builder-rev2-with-Ignore.png>_______________________________________________________
> 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/20110201/f5373758/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list