Page 2 of 3
Re: What standard ?
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:38 pm
by Dreamer
Clo wrote:—>
Dreamer
Hi !
• The pipe
| IS a standard item in configurations !
- It's not for you because you aren't a TC user
- And I don't see what is confusing : Just read…
- Anyway, less confusing than the current box where it's impossible to know what does what !
KR
Claude
Clo
If some option is in TC, it's automatically a standard?
I use many programs (tried also many file managers), but I didn't know about it, so normal users have no chance.
Standard is checkbox, "radio" buttons, drop down menu..., "|" is not a thing that all Windows users know.
I said it's confusing, not for me, but would be for normal users IMO.
I think current dialog is quite good, with my suggestion it would be the same as other file-types, with 2 options also with possibility to exclude/include.
What would be easier to understand as "mark checkbox to show", "unmark to hide"?
Current option has been added after quite long discussion, so it's not just my or Pierre's decision.
2nd option (with small modifications) would be just better, you could include and exclude anything and whole system would be the same as other file types (above).
Waiting for other opinions (Helmut, Pierre, "normal users").
Don't mix, plz!
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:11 pm
by Clo
You are mixing and confusing items in the dialogues and a
character used by a certain
syntax in fields !
- Yes, in TC this
character is used to get that syntax in several places when it's needed.
I think current dialog is quite good, …
- Sorry, I don't think so, and I'm not the only… or else, I wouln't spend hours to draw fakes trying to bring improvements…
KR
Claude
Clo
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:36 am
by Lesmo16
I would prefer it this way:
But as a TC user I would like separating "Included" and "Excluded" with a pipe, too.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:44 am
by marsh
How would these suggestions look if 'Items Displayed' were a grid design?
My interpretation of Dreamer's suggestion:
Exclude and Include would look better with this example- one function per row...
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:40 am
by Olivier_G
This one is the best suggestion so far:
Lesmo16 wrote:
More comments:
- Avoid the pipe, as it is neither obvious nor user friendly and requires additionnal explanations
(KISS in mind).
- The very small field boxes is not visually efficient with several extensions
(as in Dreamer's suggestion, Marsh's grid or my own).
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:06 pm
by Dreamer
Lesmo's idea is not bad, but checkboxes would be for both - include and exclude - it could be confusing IMO.
The very small field boxes is not visually efficient with several extensions (as in Dreamer's suggestion
Why? There is enough space for 3 extension - enough for normal users, you can add more extensions there, of course, but is you don't like it, here is another suggestion:
Old:
Code: Select all
[exe com ] files [x] [ ] [x] [x]
[pdf eps ] files [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
New:
Code: Select all
Custom files 1
[exe com ] [x] [ ] [x] [x]
Custom files 2
[pdf eps ] [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
Note "Mark to include / unmark to exclude" could be added if needed.
Also custom1 could be marked and custom2 unmarked by default, to help even more, it would be more intuitive.
Re: Cheese OR dessert…
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:55 am
by marsh
Clo wrote:
- It's better yet, but IMHO, a special setting-page should be the best, with i.e. one field per colum using the separator.
- All cases could be supported, could they not ?
That could look something like this:
<m2> acual size of current dialog
Exactly !
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am
by Clo
—> marsh
Hello B. !
•
Nice ! This is exactly that I thought about such a page !
- BTW : Back to 600*800 ?
… Cheap magnifier-glasses for me (and 1024*768 still), ~ $24 @ my chemist's
KR
Claude
Clo
Re: Exactly !
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:36 am
by marsh
Clo wrote:
• Nice ! This is exactly that I thought about such a page !
One advantage is this: Exlude is mostly used, so it isn't often necessary to touch anything to left of the seperator.
Clo wrote:
- BTW : Back to 600*800 ?
… Cheap magnifier-glasses for me (and 1024*768 still), ~ $24 @ my chemist's
Yeah, bad eyes or bad habits.
Right !
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:54 am
by Clo
Hi again !
One advantage is this: Exlude is mostly used, so it isn't often necessary to touch anything to left of the seperator.
• Absolutely ! It's the reason for which I'm in favour of the
| #124 character in an exclusion syntax !
Yeah, bad eyes or bad habits.
• Or both ?
[OT] In fact, such fake-glasses - but quite usable - are sold here at chemists' as a trick to turn around our medical rules about this product which make that getting “normal” glasses is pretty expensive ! [/OT]
KT
Claude
Clo
Re: Cheese OR dessert…
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:17 am
by Olivier_G
I
strongly oppose that idea: the end-user should not have to read anything to understand the settings. In particular, it should not confuse nor overwhelm first time users with too many specific usage.
XnView's current options are already too
complex!!! No need to add more unnecessary complexity...
Note: XnView is not Total Commander! The audience of XnView is much larger among the not-so-expert users who just want to browse images easily and efficiently.
They will not spend more than 2 minutes on the Options, will not read more than option' name and will rely mostly on the mouse. Don't ask them to spend 2 minutes to read and understand just 1 option!!!
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:55 am
by marsh
>OlivierG
It could simply act as exclude box if there were no wildcards or seperators as input?
Perhaps that would help ease of use and also fit on current GUI by doing this:
a. acts as exclude if no "|" or "*" is used.
b. can act like include|exclude.
c. checkboxes act like on and off.
Re: Cheese OR dessert…
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:03 pm
by Lesmo16
Olivier_G wrote:I
strongly oppose that idea: the end-user should not have to read anything to understand the settings. In particular, it should not confuse nor overwhelm first time users with too many specific usage.
XnView's current options are already too
complex!!! No need to add more unnecessary complexity...
Fully agree in both items!
No!
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:25 pm
by Clo
—> Oivier_G
Hello !
…The audience of XnView is much larger among the not-so-expert users who just want to browse images easily and efficiently.
• This is not true. TC is widely used in a lot of big Companies by legion of average users, i.e. Airbus, Siemens etc. worldwide.
- And about the images viewing, there are thumbnails and other features to perform that easily… Many free plugins can help in that goal too, and they are very simple to install.
- I guess that you don't like in TC is prior the €28 licence fee !
• And in the opposite of that you suppose, the Options in TC are much simpler about the number of pages, there is not any sub-category, but extra-ini entries complete the special cases like this has been discussed elsewhere here.
KR
Claude
Clo
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 pm
by helmut
I'm "middle" happy with the current solution for including/excluding in XnView 1.82, so it's good to see a new discussion going on. Perhaps the arguments, suggestions, and ideas in the old discussion are also valuable, see topic
"File Inclusion/Exclusion".