![]() If I were trying to do a popular product, I'd have to spend some time asking people / looking at the forums to determine which sets of features do people use. this was just my subjective design, based on how I use the program. Most of the time, first three options would be fine, but "custom" will show entire new group of checkboxes. ![]() A good design might have a dropdown: "everything", "nothing", "x-bit only", "custom". This will decrease cognitive load because there are less things to read and there is no need to worry what happens if you check both.Īnother great GUI feature is dynamicity - take the metadata for example. There is a very wide variety of input elements, so checkboxes are are not the right solution all the time! For example, while having separate "-verbose" and "-quiet" options is fine for CLI, one would expect to see a drop-down or a slider in the GUI. Having "hardlinks" all the way on the left and "symlinks" all the way on the right does not make a good GUI. One area of the screen would be options related to what is transferred, a second area is metadata, the third one is speed-only optimizations, fourth is logging and so on. There should be some sort of logical grouping. This is the hard part about GUI design - it is pretty easy to make a list of 100 command-line options listed alphabetically on the man page, but for GUIs, people expect much more. ![]() ![]() Is it better to make up common rsync “recipes” for people to use, or is it better to let folks have access to ALL of the flags and pick’n’mix what they want? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |