From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-22 11:08:38
Rene Rivera wrote:
> >> So
> >> having what is essentially a binary indicator is misleading.
> >As long as it reports things correctly, it's not.
> I'll only say that I agree with Peter's comments on this point.
What do you think of the revision that was run against 1.30.0 sources -
> >> ...Indicators of various kinds:
> >> Don't use background colors as indicators. It just obscure any
> >> possible information that the text is trying to indicate.
> > The first thing I would say is that this and most of other points
> > below are highly subjective. I would appreciate if we discuss them
> > in a less imperative tone ;).
> Sorry I wasn't trying to sound imperative :-\ But I also thought I
> wasn't mentioning anything other than established fact. My comments
> are things you'll find in most HTML and typography design books.
They definitely make sense as general guidelines (and we are well aware
of such), but they are in no way dogmatic.
> >Basically, there is a single (and simple!) idea that both motivates
> >using of background colors and suggests the particular scheme, that
> >is, that you should be able to determine the status of things by
> >just glancing over them. You don't have to read (and, ideally, to
> >scroll anything). It's especially important and wanted for the CVS
> >health (developer) report, which normally should be a full green
> >field. We are not pioneers here - see Built Bot
> >(http://twistedmatrix.com/~warner.twistd/) or Mozilla
> reports, - nor we think we are picking up a bad practice.
> You don't need background color to do what you intend.
We believe in our case the background color is the most effective way
to show what we want to show. Everything else gives a more cluttered
and less comprehensible picture.
> I looked at the above pointer and I think the use of background colors
> in that sample are also unjustified.
Well, we differ in that, then.
> But I guess this is a put up or shut up ;-) So here's a reformulation,
> style wise, of the user summaray page which I think shows the same
> information in a considerably more readable form without loosing the
> ability to glance at the results...
I would say it looks OK, but it doesn't even come close in clearness to
IMO, of course.
> >> Even though you did use different terms for the non-working
> >> indicator in the user page, the ones you chose are again equivalent;
> >> "doesn't work" has the same meaning as "broken".
> >IMO it doesn't, and the legend tries to explain the difference.
> It's not enough for the legend to explain it. As far as Eglish usage
> is concerned they are synonyms.
OK, you have a point. The new summary doesn't have either :) - see my
reply to Peter.
> >> Unless the number of libraries get's really large, there's
> >> no point in having the column labels at the bottom of the table.
> >It's already large enough to not fit into my screen. Even if you
> >have a huge monitor, it doesn't hurt having those, does it?
> OK, understood. Using the more standard header repetition at regular
> intercals seems like a possibility. Again see the link.
Yep, we considered it. It's not bad, although it does of breaks the
picture into pieces a little bit. We plan to implement it some day when
the table gets really big.
> >> That alignment also applies to the cell content. Sticking to the
> >> language standards (English) for this makes it easier on the reader.
> >Strongly disagree, here. I definitely want to see the status
> Well you'll have to tell me if it works on the version I made ;-)
It does, but then everything else on your page is different too ;), and a
general conclusion among my teammates involved into this project is that
our version conveys things better.
Thanks for your comments,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk