|
Mimi: It took me some time to read and digest the whole e mail since I am not that familiar with all the work you have done with Chandler. After fully reading it for a second time, and reading all the links (except the paper from Xerox Parc) I agree with you completely with your line of thinking. Still, as you do, one believes that there must be some other ways to solve this puzzle. The more I think of the complexity that Chandler and its infrastructure means the more I see it as a daunting experience, but still that´s the beauty underneath, to be able to manage this huge amount of energy into a coherent, manageable form. While reading the notes and even before, I had other ideas I would like to share with you (all). Some are small, some are semantic and some others might go in straight collision with the work you have done, though they are not meant to do so. Analysis of User Centric Approach to Projects Step 1 Cleaning/Classification This has to do with the triage concept together with (if defined before hand or at the moment) to classify into a Project /Collection Step 2 Work in Progress In this step one should be able to do the work, not classify it or clean it, just do it, either project centric or task centric (like make all the phone calls) Step 3 Archiving of Projects/Collections Obviously after one having done/processed tasks from the work in progress, one files those items back to their folders and drawers (disappearing act) so one can continue with the next act. Because of the nature of Chandler, some of this disappearing act should be done automatically. Obviously this 3 steps are not necessary sequential nor take only 1 time in the whole day, but are in fact very different activities that one, as a person, assumes as a role for an specific amount of time. I personally and subjectively believe that the UI for those 3 steps might benefit if they are different but with a very fast switch between them (so as not to loose time, but show only the necessary information) Project/Collections As you mention should have at least (and only I believe) three fields. One should be a short description Another should be the positive outcome/goals (GTD) The last one should be marked as done (GTD) Analysis of current e mail program Looking at the left side of my e mail program, trying to clean up my In box, I realized (and this is not new to you) that the program is e mail centric and not user centric. Unsent messages -> should tend to disappear. We are having even more broadband, always on line, and people have changed the way they use the Internet, so I think this should tend to disappear (at least as an Icon or folder) Drafts -> from the Chandler user experience, you can first make a note (not sure if this is the right semantic) and then assign a property like email. Also tends to disappear and should be Collection/Project instead Sent -> is it the best place to put things? what would be the correct metaphor. I know I haven´t digged deep enough in the research you have made in Chandler but one thing is for sure, it will also tend to disappear. This is more of an attribute of the email or other things that are sync to others. Junk -> Junk does not disappear, it is growing, still I believe that it shouldn´t be not even near the projects/Collection pane. It takes valuable space (a lot) for something we occasionally go to. It should disappear from the pane altogether, or have a different importance. Trash -> The same as Junk * This small, subjective analysis was made for Thunderbird not for Chandler Semantic Deleting vrs Removing (for me sounds the same) Delete vrs Hide (is it more whats up to?) Yours, Daniel Vareika PS 1: As always, sorry before hand if I repeat something that you might have already done or noticed. I haven´t gone through all the documentation that you have produced over the course of these years. I sincerely would appreciate your comments. PS2: I had some ideas, what I realized was that when I was trying to put them on paper, some ideas went into collision with others, so I think is better to put them together in different e mail (not in a whole interface (a bit daunting) and only afterwards try to make something coherent out of it. PS3: Subjectively to me it I have the sensation that from the original prototype made by Andy and Mitch (together with other valuable people) we might be sticking with some UI designs/metaphors, which now might not be the best implementations for Chandler. I know there has been put an awful lot of work into it coding the actual interface of Chandler, but not being part of OSAF makes it easier to start with a blank sheet of paper (only in part), with all the background research you have already conducted and done. I am starting to see how difficult is to make the right decisions, since they take time to implement, and one might not have the truth about it. It would be great, from a UI Designer stand point of view, if one could rapidly prototype different implementations of the UI of Chandler so as to give them a try, so as to either adopt or discard ideas quickly. Yours as always, Daniel Vareika Mimi Yin wrote: Daniel, |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
