What if, when viewed at smaller than a certain size, it not only shrank down the menu but also simplified it so that it looked more like a narrow bar on an app? Just high enough to be usable on small touch-screen tablets or notepads with Home and Back buttons (or Cancel and Save buttons on screens that are being edited, or an Edit button on screens that can be edited), and a Menu button that gives a dropdown list of the other options? It could be that simple, or perhaps have one or two other context-sensitive buttons appear on certain screens.
I wouldn't ever expect the client to be fully functional on a little smartphone screen (although access to certain pieces would be really useful in a pinch), but there are lots of scenarios where being able to use the majority of the functions on a small tablet would be wonderful. I've also worked with library staff who have poor vision and like their monitors to be set at extremely low resolutions, and this type of behavior would be good for them as well. (I like Jason's color-coding of the Cancel vs Save buttons as an additional visual cue, too.) Terran McCanna PINES Program Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30345 404-235-7138 tmcca...@georgialibraries.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason A Boyer" <jbo...@library.in.gov> To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 8:23:07 AM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Web Client Design - Fixed Page Elements? I like this idea a lot, and I have a thought on how to avoid wasting a lot of vertical space while doing it. I don't know how complex it would be since I haven't looked at the angular code much, but if the save/cancel options could take the place of the Check Out, Items Out, etc. options at the top that wouldn't require any additional space. It would also make it clear that you've chosen to edit this record and to move on to something else you need to either choose to save it or abandon your changes. I would even go so far as to say that I'd like to adopt the Android and iOS convention that the "data-loss" (Cancel in this case) option be red while the Save option be blue like the other interface elements. It's something I could see used in several places (and possibly make the angular-ization of any interface that doesn't follow this convention more desirable, possibly getting more hands involved, etc.) Jason -- Jason Boyer Indiana State Library http://library.in.gov/ From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wells Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 3:14 PM To: 'open-ils-general' Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Web Client Design - Fixed Page Elements? Hello all, This came up in Kathy's recent thread asking about the patron editor, and rather than hijack that thread, I'd like to broaden the conversation a little, because the same usability issues will affect many areas of the staff client. To cut straight to the point, I strongly believe that using fixed position for large portions of the staff client interface will have a major positive effect on usability. This has been applied and proven in desktop applications for decades, and is now being rediscovered within the browser environment as web "pages" become applications. There is plenty of evidence out there to support this stance, but here is a quick read which highlights the point well: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012/09/11/sticky-menus-are-quicker-to-navigate/ If we consider the mockups from our design internship a few months back, in the screenshot Kathy referenced, the entire top area (and, in this case, the right sidebar) would ideally be fixed position. The only scrolling area should be the actual form. For any who attended my talk on design at the conference, this is exactly the concern of rule of thumb #3: "Scroll the data, not the interface", with "data" broadly including all information and workspaces which are not "the program". (Here is Kathy's screenshot link again for reference: http://media.tumblr.com/69beec7802a938b889bdfa80c7e0d54b/tumblr_inline_nkn0okinXl1t572gy.png ) The main complaint driven at fixed screen elements is that they take up too much space. They do take up space, obviously, but with the amount of use these elements get on a moment by moment basis, the space is well worth taking. In cases where more workspace is truly of benefit, we are better off using fixed position with a "hide" option (auto or manual) than we would be with using scroll, as we can retain the clear benefits of persistent availability and predictability. (Expert users might also choose to do without some toolbars and rely on keyboard shortcuts, but that sort of use will never be feasible for many staff client users and scenarios.) As the Smashing Magazine article points out, the easiest way to understand the situation is to simply imagine other software working with fully-scrolling interfaces. In this imaginary scenario, when you are using a word processor, a spreadsheet application, or even a browser itself, all of your menus, toolbars, tabs, etc., would simply scroll off the screen as soon as you tried to scroll down to see additional content. It's likely that some ancient desktop software did exactly that, but if they did, they are now extinct, and not without good reason. Another valid concern sometimes raised is the effect a rich, fixed interface might have on a small screen appliance, like a phone. This topic should be addressed, but I believe it is best kept separate from the problems at hand, which are already large enough. My personal stance would be that a full, first-class staff client interface on a small screen device is not a realistic concern for a community of our size, needs, and capabilities. Our bar for using the full client on phones should be "not impossible", and then we can re-dedicate a portion of our energy to creating limited, purpose-built interfaces for functions of known value on small devices (e.g. inventory scanning), and which are also likely to best include some fixed top and/or bottom elements. I also want to emphasize that none if this is meant to disparage the work which has been done so far. It is much harder to make something out of nothing than to take something and make it better. I also acknowledge that, while I have spent large amounts of time studying the web client, I have found zero time to contribute to the actual web client code. That said, if we can help establish consensus around where we want to end up, I know I would feel more comfortable jumping in, and I suspect others might as well. Sincerely, Dan Daniel Wells Library Programmer/Analyst Hekman Library, Calvin College 616.526.7133
