Hey,
At 14:12 24.5.2000 -0400, you wrote:
>On 24 May 00, at 20:43, Juha Lindfors wrote:
>My suggestion to make the various plugins correspond to tabs
>came from this concept that I have. I would use the tree to
>navigate the "objects," and I would use the tabs to set the
>attributes on those objects corresponding to a particular plugin.
Aha... I see what you mean now. Well, maybe that's not putting it correctly
-- I'm visualizing something, not sure if it's the same thing you are :)
Guess you can't beat pictures in GUI design, huh?
>I think your point is good about the number of tabs you can have
>before the user interface becomes unintuitive. Would it be
>mitigated by my suggestion to let the user control the tabs (i.e. the
>views) dynamically?
What exactly do you mean by this?
>Otherwise, I see two possibilities. The first is that my conceptual
>division is wrong in terms of the user-interface. We could consider
>inserting plugin-specific branches into the tree. For instance, the
>user might be able to insert a new Jaws node into a CMP bean.
>Then, when he or she clicked on that node, a view would open up
>that would allow him or her to configure the Jaws mapping.
Hmm.. there might be something here too. My initial thinking was that one
JAWS configuration will do for all entities, but of course that was wrong.
In that case, the assembly/bean structure on a tree would be sufficient I
think. Yet we might still end up with a lot of tabs... how many different
plugins can you see for one bean, for example?
>The second is that we find a more expressive way to represent
>those views than simply tab pages. Possibly separate windows
>rather than tabs? Any other ideas?
Darn, I knew I should've read that Alan Cooper's book. Anyone read it? :p
-- Juha
