[suggestion] make a single choice for the UI and keep it



  • Hi, I personally think that a UI should be homogeneus and harmonious, meaning that we should be dealing with UI items belonging to one category, only. It is terrible to use a single application and be forced to deal with: - pop-up windows (like the veeeeeeeeery old fashioned File->Open... dll), as well as - panels (like the rather old F4 kind of interaction: a menu you click onto...), as well as - old style cascading menu (this is absolutely obsolete), as well as - multifunction cycling buttons with no drop down menus (like the "hide images" button), as well as - multifunction buttons with drop down menus (like the trash button), as well as - single function buttons (like the home button...) Please make a choice, and develop the UI accordingly. I would personally: - totally eliminate the right click menu on the V logo, on the top left corner of the application (it is totally useless) - eliminate the status bar: it's too much a mouse-interactive UI and nowadays noone expects to click the mouse on a tiny bar, to zoom, but expects to find this feature it in the + and - keys on the keyboard (or into the wheel of the mouse itself). and, if the choice for the UI would be to implement a "panel approach", then I'd: - integrate into the panels, the File->Open and File->Save functions - move the trash into the panels or, if the choice for the UI would be to implement a "button approach", then I'd: - move the bookmarks out of the panels and place them next to the trash. - add an incon next the the Home looking like a page to implement Open and Save newscpq



  • @newscpq:

    Hi,
    I personally think that a UI should be homogeneus and harmonious, meaning that we should be dealing with UI items belonging to one category, only.

    It is terrible to use a single application and be forced to deal with:

    • pop-up windows (like the veeeeeeeeery old fashioned File->Open… dll), as well as
    • panels (like the rather old F4 kind of interaction: a menu you click onto...), as well as
    • old style cascading menu (this is absolutely obsolete), as well as
    • multifunction cycling buttons with no drop down menus (like the "hide images" button), as well as
    • multifunction buttons with drop down menus (like the trash button), as well as
    • single function buttons (like the home button...)

    Please make a choice, and develop the UI accordingly.

    I would personally:

    • totally eliminate the right click menu on the V logo, on the top left corner of the application (it is totally useless)
    • eliminate the status bar: it's too much a mouse-interactive UI and nowadays noone expects to click the mouse on a tiny bar, to zoom, but expects to find this feature it in the + and - keys on the keyboard (or into the wheel of the mouse itself).

    and, if the choice for the UI would be to implement a "panel approach", then I'd:

    • integrate into the panels, the File->Open and File->Save functions
    • move the trash into the panels
      or, if the choice for the UI would be to implement a "button approach", then I'd:
    • move the bookmarks out of the panels and place them next to the trash.
    • add an incon next the the Home looking like a page to implement Open and Save

    newscpq

    No offence but I believe that if you are all about eye candyness you should use explorer with the metro UI, instead of wasting your time here.

    Thanks god the boss here is Jon von Tetzchner, not Steve Jobs nor Steven Sinofsky :P



  • @RRR13:

    @newscpq:

    • eliminate the status bar

    Keep the status bar

    +1 Keep it and even enhance it.



  • @newscpq:

    • panels (like the rather old F4 kind of interaction: a menu you click onto…), as well as

    -1000 Panels are vital. That's why I like Opera 12 and this new browser.



  • @The_Solutor:

    No offence but I believe that if you are all about eye candyness you should use explorer with the metro UI, instead of wasting your time here.

    Thanks god the boss here is Jon von Tetzchner, not Steve Jobs nor Steven Sinofsky :P

    IMO … there's nothing wrong with having a Browser that not only winds up having awe-inspiring and drool-eliciting functionality, but also LOOKS very impressive and different than all the other Browsers. Cuz it'll already be a tough time for Vivaldi to neutralize the thinking of many that, "Oh that's just great. That's all we needed ... yet another Chrome clone."

    Having a great-looking Browser would certainly help in the promotional area. I for one would hate to see a great-functioning Browser ruined by an ugly GUI like ohhh say --- what CCleaner 5.xx has. That is one ugly GUI. There is no need to go the ugly flat Metro route just because seemingly everyone else seems to be going that route without rhyme or reason.


  • Moderator

    Wow, newscpq.

    I disagree with almost EVERYTHING you just wrote there.



  • @newscpq

    Ayespye wrote: "I disagree with almost EVERYTHING you just wrote there."

    I totally agree with EVERYTHING @Ayespy just wrote there.



  • @Ayespy:

    Wow, newscpq.

    I disagree with almost EVERYTHING you just wrote there.

    Same here.

    One of the main reasons I prefer O12 to the new Opera is that it has those "absolutely obsolete" classic-style menus. Those menus that give you a uniform, consistent look across applications instead of having to learn a new UI for each program and waste time hunting for universal options like "File - Save as…" that are always in the same place in classic menus.

    I also love panels, status bar, "File - Open...", etc.

    The OP is describing the trend that all the mainstream browsers are now following, led by Chrome. So I wonder why he doesn't use Chrome, IE, Firefox or the new Opera instead of a browser for people who want to flee from the very philosophy he's advocating...



  • @ newscpq: while I agree with you on the intent of your suggestion, that of a unified user experience, most of your examples are way off base in my opinion.

    The problem of pop-up windows has always been, that they were set up in a modal style. When you open an options/settings window in an application like the old Opera or the current Firefox, the browser itself becomes unusable until the settings pop-up is closed again. Vivaldi's extent of settings have a long way to go yet, but this browser has already solved the most critical issue, since the main window remains fully usable while changing the settings. I'm not saying, that a browser needs to display its settings in a pop-up window, but what's the better alternative? When I stopped using the old Opera and looked at Chrome or the new Opera as alternatives, I was totally let down by the way their settings page felt and worked.

    You shouldn't be forced to deal with panels at all, you're right about that. Having said that, their removal should not be the solution. Panels have been one of my most-used features in the old Opera and they were one of the main reasons why I switched over to Firefox after the old Presto-based browser was discontinued. If you take away this convenient feature, you're left with a browser like Chrome, where many of the side-bar functions are relegated to inconvenient drop-down menus (they always close when they lose focus) or separate tabs, neither of which is conducive to a swift work-flow. Granted, not everybody wants or needs that exact feature, but I thought Vivaldi existed to rebirth some of the old Opera browser's strengths and panels definitely are on that list!

    The old style cascading menus have to go, I absolutely agree with you. I don't have an issue with the design of the menus when the menu bar is displayed, but clicking on the top-left Vivaldi menu button is a horror. Some people moaned about the new Windows start menu introduced with Vista, but I saw the opportunities and loved how it was designed as the central hub for the whole operating system. I think the old Firefox button menu (version 4 to 28) did its best to provide that in a browser, but even that design couldn't escape some cascading entirely.

    I'm also rather confused how you a) don't like cascading lists, b) dislike cycling on/off buttons without a context menu and c) don't like buttons with a drop-down/context menu either. How then can the browser for example display the recently closed tabs, when there's no way to display that list to your satisfaction? One almost inevitably gets the impression, that Vivaldi can't do anything right by you.

    The big problem I see with your suggestions is that you proclaim these suggestions as design guidelines, but you soon venture into a space, where you request the removal of actual features (because you don't use them). Instead of saying "I don't want panels, please remove them; I don't want a status-bar, please remove it" you should be thinking of ways to keep these features in the browser without them having a negative impact on those people who don't plan to make use of them. Ask to make them optional, instead of removing them entirely.

    If the latter is your philosophy for this whole browser, then I hope to God you won't find many open ears here. I discovered Vivaldi as the natural successor to the old Opera, a browser which was apparently everything you didn't want!



  • What a successfull post ;)

    I've been using Opera long before it was even a 32 bit application and always used it, both for its' philosophy on standard adherence and css support, and for some features I reallly liked a lot: spatial navigation, optimum cache management, accurate zoom and keyboard control
    (I never used a mouse in my life).

    … but I wouldn't resuscitate 16 bit menus, in the year 2015.

    I reallly like the modern look of the settings window and I'd convert all the UI to the same light grey and light blue look and feel: that would be cool and NEW.

    P.S: NEW for me, means unseen. So every old Opera feature isn't NEW, by definition ;)

    Newscpq



  • I think my post have been misunderstood. Here are two points to try to clarify:

    • I'm talking about UI that needs to be harmonized, not about features to remove
    • I didn't say some feature should be removed, but some obsolete UI components.

    I'm just suggesting to give Vivaldi a consistent AND modern UI.

    Panels are OK, but bookmarks (especially bookmarks) and their very old, I'd call it surpassed, folder hierarchy structure should for instance changed into something different: what if they became a single search field (no folders, no visual interface at all)?

    I really don't see the need to store the bookmarks in a human vieable folder hierarchy: they can be stored in a very simple, machine searchable DB (as they are already, somehow), without any folder structure.

    As well as we don't need to see the whole internet structured in a folder hierarchy to find a web page (we just need a search field), why should we keep that structure for a few, or even a lot of, bookmarks?

    newscpq



  • @newscpq:

    I think my post have been misunderstood. Here are two points to try to clarify:

    • I'm talking about UI that needs to be harmonized, not about features to remove
    • I didn't say some feature should be removed, but some obsolete UI components.

    I'm just suggesting to give Vivaldi a consistent AND modern UI.

    Panels are OK, but bookmarks (especially bookmarks) and their very old, I'd call it surpassed, folder hierarchy structure should for instance changed into something different: what if they became a single search field (no folders, no visual interface at all)?

    I really don't see the need to store the bookmarks in a human vieable folder hierarchy: they can be stored in a very simple, machine searchable DB (as they are already, somehow), without any folder structure.

    As well as we don't need to see the whole internet structured in a folder hierarchy to find a web page (we just need a search field), why should we keep that structure for a few, or even a lot of, bookmarks?

    newscpq

    what you are calling obsolete I consider must haves, don't like the stripped out 'modern' ui's of chrome/ie & default firefox etc & have no wish to hunt through a database for bookmarks, have 1000's of them!



  • @Suntana:

    IMO … there's nothing wrong with having a Browser that not only winds up having awe-inspiring and drool-eliciting functionality, but also LOOKS very impressive and different than all the other Browsers. Cuz it'll already be a tough time for Vivaldi to neutralize the thinking of many that, "Oh that's just great. That's all we needed ... yet another Chrome clone."

    Having a great-looking Browser would certainly help in the promotional area. I for one would hate to see a great-functioning Browser ruined by an ugly GUI like ohhh say --- what CCleaner 5.xx has. That is one ugly GUI. There is no need to go the ugly flat Metro route just because seemingly everyone else seems to be going that route without rhyme or reason.

    I'm surely not against a coherent look, but I'm against the pointless innovations especially when they means lack of usefulness .

    To bad this happen almost always.

    No need to mention the Metro UI fiasco, but there are a lot of other examples, starting from KDE 4+ v.s KDE 3.xx Gnome 3+ .v.s. Gnome 2.xx.

    I believe the most evident is Android 4+ V..S. Gingerbread.

    The latter had surely a less polite UI, but at the same time it was waaaay more well suited for the device that used it.

    Think to the menu, now moved on the upper left corner. It's just insane especially given the display now are way bigger than in the Gingerbread era, when the menu was a physical button easily reachable in any situation.

    That's what I mean. GUI must be firstly useful, handy, ergonomic. Then one can think to improve the look.



  • @newscpq:

    I think my post have been misunderstood.

    I fear you weren't misunderstood at all, because the following comments aren't any different.

    @newscpq:

    • I didn't say some feature should be removed, but some obsolete UI components.

    If an UI component provides a working feature, can it really be called obsolete? You're still arguing from the same point of view: you don't use it, so you call it obsolete.

    @newscpq:

    Panels are OK, but bookmarks (especially bookmarks) and their very old, I'd call it surpassed, folder hierarchy structure should for instance changed into something different: what if they became a single search field (no folders, no visual interface at all)?

    There is a reason, why people began to save bookmarks in a folder-like structure and this hasn't changed all of a sudden. Once a threshold is reached, managing a list of bookmarks or finding a group of related links in said list is impossible without some kind of structure. (See below for more on that)

    @newscpq:

    I really don't see the need to store the bookmarks in a human vieable folder hierarchy: they can be stored in a very simple, machine searchable DB (as they are already, somehow), without any folder structure.

    If said structure was suddenly taken away, like you're arguing for, then we would be exactly where the new Opera browser was in the beginning. Instead of the full bookmark feature from v12, you only had the option of importing/storing your favorite links in the speed dial with all of its inherent limitations. I don't know if you were around for that on the Opera blog and forums, but there have been hundreds if not thousands of negative comments and post on that topic alone and they still haven't ended (although most people have simply left the browser behind by now).

    Personally, I wouldn't say no to a bookmarks system based on a searchable db, but only if the basic functionality of any proper bookmark system can be recreated.

    @newscpq:

    As well as we don't need to see the whole internet structured in a folder hierarchy to find a web page (we just need a search field), why should we keep that structure for a few, or even a lot of, bookmarks?

    This comparison doesn't work, because it's like comparing apples to oranges.

    At some point, once the amount of stored data has reached a certain size, a human created category structure will not be efficient enough anymore. That's more or less what led to the success of Google as the world's leading search engine, when it competed with bookmark collections like the Yahoo Directory for example. That said however, we will only run into that problem a few orders of magnitude beyond the number of links the average user will store in his bookmarks.

    FYI, the search feature you want is already present. There's a bookmarks search box in the panel and even an address-bar search will display any matching bookmarks.

    Again, the only thing you're advocating is to cut features from the browser because you don't see a need for it. I won't say any more on that, but that's hardly constructive.



  • @newscpq:

    I think my post have been misunderstood. …

    Panels are OK, but bookmarks (especially bookmarks) and their very old, I'd call it surpassed, folder hierarchy structure should for instance changed into something different: what if they became a single search field (no folders, no visual interface at all)? I really don't see the need to store the bookmarks in a human vieable folder hierarchy: they can be stored in a very simple, machine searchable DB (as they are already, somehow), without any folder structure. As well as we don't need to see the whole internet structured in a folder hierarchy to find a web page (we just need a search field), why should we keep that structure for a few, or even a lot of, bookmarks?...

    I have around 185 different bookmarks similar to the two below:
    http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=41.189533696875&lon=-85.20750258300781&site=iwx&smap=1&marine=1&unit=0&lg=en
    http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=41.687756790321&lon=-84.99398740335129&site=iwx&smap=1&marine=1&unit=0&lg=en

    Could you explain how a user would employ a searchable flat database to distinguish between them for accessing, if he happens not to remember their exact latitude and longitude - noting also that all 185 bookmarks have identical site icons? The logical, organized method of storing them is to place them as bookmarks (along with other locale-related bookmarks referring to other weather parameters) into different folders and sub-folders, each titled by the plain-language locations involved. The problem with database files that are only machine accessible is that a user is required to remember the data's access keys (fields) to direct the retrieval of the correct data entry. Humans need visual cues and hierarchical filing structures to supplement and guide their memory.



  • @flash:

    you're advocating (…) to cut features from the browser because you don't see a need for it

    Would you quote a phrase where I would be asking or suggesting to cut a feature? I did never.
    Thank you for your replies, anyway.
    Bye



  • I won't get into my preferences for the user interface, although I have many. Many of my preferences relate to visibility as my eyes are not the best. Yet, my primary concern is having options. The more the better. One my major complaints with all the Chrome clones is that the range of choices was extremely limited. So, as long as I can tweak EVERYTHING, I'm good ;)



  • @newscpq:

    @flash:

    you're advocating (…) to cut features from the browser because you don't see a need for it

    Would you quote a phrase where I would be asking or suggesting to cut a feature? I did never.

    The classic menu bar is a feature. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it less of a feature. For many of us, it's a must have. A browser that doesn't have it can't be my primary browser.

    Look, the Opera guys cut features like bookmarks from their browser because they had stats that said that only a very small percent of users (something like 1%) were using them. Probably the stats were true, I don't think they would lie in that. But the result of removing features was that an overwhelming majority of the user base was unhappy. Why? Well, because maybe each feature was needed only by 1% of the users, but each feature was needed by a different 1%. So summing up, the majority of users needed some feature that was removed.

    For example, I want MDI and classic menu bars. I don't care much about tab stacking or the email client. However, other users want tab stacking, others want the email client, others want vertical tab bar, per-site preferences, etc. etc.

    A minimalist browser can be good for users that just want a simple browser, but will never be good for power users. Power users need a browser packed with features, not to use them all, but to be able to choose the ones they want. And this includes configurability of the UI. Yes, including things that you call "obsolete" and are not obsolete at all, as they do their function perfectly well and, in the opinion of some of us, better than more modern alternatives.



  • I guess you are right, thus we need to define what "innovative" and "new" mean.
    Collecting "features" (as you call them) needed in the past by small minorities of users, can't be call innovative, nor new: if you restore old "features" you are not doing anything new.
    At all.
    newscpq



  • I think @Al-Khwarizmi is very near the actual facts about Opera. Its user-base was largely populated by those needing certain (but not necessarily the same) features, settings, or configurability not found in other browsers. On top of that, those things in Opera were accumulated gradually in the browser design over many years by the creativity of a long-term group of designers who thought like many of those users. Gutting the browser of a large chunk of such customizability for whatever reasons was guaranteed to horrify and alienate the vast majority of their prior user-base. Because those users generally regard a browser as a tool, and with Opera evaporating before their eyes, it left few options for them, whether or not they constituted any kind of user majority by any definition. In other words, a browser void had been created. Quite frankly, for such users, there is now something resembling a 'desperate' search for a genuinely customizable browser. Vivaldi offers hope and promise in this area, though certainly not all users will be happy with what emerges at any given stage of development.

    Offering yet another minimalist browser, IMHO, is not a path to success… there are already too many competitors in that arena with too similar a set of offerings. But offering a customizable browser that can be set to be minimalist if a user wishes, again IMO, offers a very promising path to a more modest - but more enduring - form of success. But... only time and user response will really tell.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.