Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/25/09 9:05 AM, Nathan Fritz wrote: On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Fabio Forno fabio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/25 Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be: Yep, which are the same actions, confusing users. No, they're not, which was the point of my rant. Next gets you on to more advanced settings, whereas Finish just says Skip the next screens, the defaults are fine for me. I'd like to see some using this behavior, since it is really bad for users (much better a combo inside the form with finish, advanced options) I think it's a big assumption to say that it is bad behavior and to explicitly prevent implementations from doing it. In fact, assuming that a human being is using the forms is often an incorrect assumption. The specs are meant to facilitate. If anything, an implementation guideline note is all that is necessary. I'm all in favor of implementation notes. XEP-0050 is on my list of specs to fix up this fall, so suggested text would be great (I'm happy to wordsmith further if needed). Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEUEARECAAYFAkrBcUAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyQ9gCcCRiCpHlwt4fzQwYaF3WY4Mwv 7QMAmPl1ikb0KjCcvwO6Q0Rzg2YrTsU= =8lCG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
On Fri Sep 25 10:29:44 2009, Fabio Forno wrote: Re-reading XEP-0050 for an implementation issue I've found nothing that forbids sending the actions next/ and complete/ together. Imho it is a nonsense and I think nobody uses it, but for better clarification and better user interfaces (I've seen both buttons together sometimes) I'd write in paragraph 3.4, in the third bullet: next/ and complete/ MUST not be used together. Is that kind of structure commonly used for short-cuts in wizards, and suchlike? So you have both a [Next ] and a [Finish] button available? Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
Is that kind of structure commonly used for short-cuts in wizards, and suchlike? Unfortunately, it is. Horrible UI: there's no way of knowing what is behind 'next' unless you press it, so you basically have to press it anyway (unless you know your way around the wizard like a pro, and remember by heart, which probably means you don't use a wizard ;-)) But since it's a used technique, i think we shoudl support it. cheers, Remko
Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On Fri Sep 25 10:29:44 2009, Fabio Forno wrote: Re-reading XEP-0050 for an implementation issue I've found nothing that forbids sending the actions next/ and complete/ together. Imho it is a nonsense and I think nobody uses it, but for better clarification and better user interfaces (I've seen both buttons together sometimes) I'd write in paragraph 3.4, in the third bullet: next/ and complete/ MUST not be used together. Is that kind of structure commonly used for short-cuts in wizards, and suchlike? So you have both a [Next ] and a [Finish] button available? Yep, which are the same actions, confusing users. -- Fabio Forno, Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: f...@jabber.bluendo.com
Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
2009/9/25 Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be: Yep, which are the same actions, confusing users. No, they're not, which was the point of my rant. Next gets you on to more advanced settings, whereas Finish just says Skip the next screens, the defaults are fine for me. There are less horrible scenarios, too. Imagine you're using forwards and backwards to find an item in multiple pages of results (an ad-hoc search engine or such), and you want to select something when you find it, and hit Finish. It's not how ad-hoc's been used before, but I /think/ (without re-reading the spec) that would be valid. /K
Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
There are less horrible scenarios, too. Good point. cheers, Remko
Re: [Standards] Action rules in XEP-0050
On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Fabio Forno fabio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/25 Remko Tronçon re...@el-tramo.be: Yep, which are the same actions, confusing users. No, they're not, which was the point of my rant. Next gets you on to more advanced settings, whereas Finish just says Skip the next screens, the defaults are fine for me. I'd like to see some using this behavior, since it is really bad for users (much better a combo inside the form with finish, advanced options) I think it's a big assumption to say that it is bad behavior and to explicitly prevent implementations from doing it. In fact, assuming that a human being is using the forms is often an incorrect assumption. The specs are meant to facilitate. If anything, an implementation guideline note is all that is necessary. -Nathan Fritz (cellphone) -- Fabio Forno, Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com jabber id: f...@jabber.bluendo.com
