> On July 18, 2016, 12:05 p.m., Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > Please don't ship it, yet.
> > 
> > 
> > I find the UI illogical. There's a groupbox grouping the checksum buttons, 
> > but then you can input the checksum above, so essentially, the groupbox is 
> > unnecessary and confusing.
> > 
> > Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified by naming the tab "Checksums" 
> > and removing the groupbox altogether, as it's not providing any semantic 
> > value.
> > 
> > A usability reviewer should have a look.
> 
> Kai Uwe Broulik wrote:
>     This dialog has been created in Review 128283 and Usability has been 
> involved from the beginning...
> 
> Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>     It has changed in a significant way, though, making it illogical.
>     
>     (Not that I understand the "Share" title in the original review, but 
> that's another matter.)
>     
>     This needs more work.
> 
> Elvis Angelaccio wrote:
>     > Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified by naming the tab 
> "Checksums" and removing the groupbox altogether, as it's not providing any 
> semantic value.
>     
>     Preview here: https://share.kde.org/index.php/s/RUs9gAhIQqpFIqF
> 
> Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>     This looks logical to me, and it's simpler: Very good!
>     
>     (Take that as "sebas withdraws his objection" :))
> 
> Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>     Clear -1 to removing the group box.
>     
>     Here is tha rationale:
>     For most "regular" users, only the lineedit at the top is relevant. The 
> calculate stuff is just distraction and - worse - potential confusion. If we 
> remove any visual distinction between the two, we just make the situation 
> worse for them.
>     
>     I agree that calling the tab "Checksums" is still better, though, because 
> "Integrity" is too vague.
>     
>     For the "average user" I just re-tested this with, what would actually 
> help her is creating a second box around the verification part, calling the 
> top one "Verify checksum" and the bottom "Calculate checksums".
>     That way if she was told e.g. by a website to verify a checksum, she'd 
> knew she could simply ignore the whole calculation part.
>     
>     Overall simplicity should not be the top priority here: The priority 
> should be to make it clear to users who just want to check whether a download 
> went okay which part they should care about and which they can ignore, while 
> still providing the calculation part for advanced users who want to do that.
>     
>     Of course another option would be to split it in two tabs, but that might 
> make the tab bar quite long especially in languages like German.

The latter part seems redundant then. How can you verify a checksum without 
calculating it?


- Sebastian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128466/#review97521
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 16, 2016, 12:35 p.m., Elvis Angelaccio wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128466/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 16, 2016, 12:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks, KDE Usability and Dominik Haumann.
> 
> 
> Repository: kio
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Dominik suggested to rename the `Checksums` tab to `Integrity`, so that we 
> can "free" the Checksums string and use it as the title of the groupbox below 
> (in place of the current `Share` string, which can be confusing).
> 
> Preview in the attached screenshot.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/widgets/checksumswidget.ui 03c64db 
>   src/widgets/kpropertiesdialog.cpp 808765c 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128466/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> File Attachments
> ----------------
> 
> Before
>   
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/07/16/6771ed06-c803-4d18-abe3-91e4f97c8c76__checksums-tab.png
> After
>   
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/07/16/b2cd12c8-6bbf-4123-9e8e-59cb0c29cbdb__Spectacle.TJ7614.png
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Elvis Angelaccio
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel

Reply via email to