Re: [Usability] Evolution 2.0

[Roberto Rosselli Del Turco <rosselli ling unipi it>]

Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
> Hehe, I knew this would come up.  ;-)
>
> First of all, I'd like to point out the changes that we are proposing
> actually steer pretty substantially in that direction.  By implementing
> these changes, we are going to get rid of a lot of the architecture that
> is currently in the shell, which means that the components will run more
> independently from each other.
>
> And if we do this architectural work, the Evolution components will be
> able to run without each other.  The shell will be so minimal that it
> would hardly do anything at all, so you could run a shell with the mail
> component in it, a shell with the addressbook in it, and one with the
> calendar in it.  I.e. you'll actually have three separate apps.
>
> On the other hand, I am not sure we want to altogether give up the
> ability to integrate the components in the same app.  It does have a
> usability advantage over strictly separate apps, since you can have all
> the groupware-related pieces of information in the same spot and you
> don't have to mess with multiple windows.  (Also, it's necessary for
> Connector to keep working, but we can ignore that for now.)
>
> BTW I am not sure about the muscle memory problem.  If you have three
> separate apps, then menu items are going to be in different relative
> spots in the three apps...  So it doesn't sound like it's any better
> than the menu items being different depending on which state (calendar,
> mail, etc) the app is in.
>
> On the other hand, having calendar, mail and addressbook in the same
> view (as in Anna's mockups) helps usability since the folder selector
> pane and the view pane are always in the same spot and you don't have to
> mess with the WM when switching e.g. between your schedule and your
> mail.  Also you have the "New" button always in the same spot, the
> search bar is always in the same spot, and so on.
>
> If you are using calendar, mail and contacts at the same time (as it is
> the case with many Evolution users), then using separate programs for
> them is more awkward than having them all nicely integrated in the same
> UI.  If you want, it's a bit like browsing the web with tabs vs. without
> tabs.

First of all, I agree on the following points that have been expressed 
on the list:

* before starting real work on Evo 2.0 UI, it's a good idea to sit down 
and think about a good conceptual model (Calum, Jeff);

* Evo 2.0 should be separated into standalone (but integrated) apps 
(Dave, Sean, Ali, Daniel, countless others :)

I will add the following:

* don't be afraid to innovate! (at least on the conceptual level :) I 
was quite disappointed to notice the similarities between the proposed 
mockups and Entourage (or whatever is it's name, links on Footnotes). 
Why always follow? Let's try something new!

End of foreword, now my take on the mockups.

The problem with the current UI IMHO is not solved through the solution 
proposed in the mockups. Basically, the problem lies in the fact that 
you're trying to integrate in a bi-dimensional space (a window) many 
different kinds of objects and lists of objects (I'm mainly referring to 
the mockups here):

- the list of Evolution views (Mail, Calendar, Address book, etc.);

- the list of items pertaining to each view (mail messages, filters, 
different calendars, etc.);

- a standard menubar;

- a general toolbar, which in turn comprises items specific for each 
view (quite confusing for the user IMHO);

- a "loose" toolbar, consisting of a view-switching gadget and a search 
tool;

- finally, the main focus (if there's enough space left) is for the view 
itself.

As a result, you have too many gadgets and things in a single window, 
and the UI is something you have to *learn* before you can actually 
start using the program.

Two changes hinted at during the discussion aren't going to help (again 
IMHO, of course, I don't claim to be a UI expert anyway):

* getting rid of the shortcut list in exchange for a cluster of buttons 
doesn't look good to me, because:

	- you lose functionality (custom shortcuts to preferred folders);

	- it's a step backward on the UI level (and quite unelegant);

* getting rid of the summary is also a pity, as it's not only a nice 
gadget for power users, but also a way to see at a glance how many new 
mails they've got, the tasks for the day, etc.

So, if you've made it so far, here is a modest proposal:

1. DO split Evolution 2.0 in separate applications;

2. DO build a new, ergonomic UI for each application;

3. DON'T get rid of the summary, on the contrary: make the summary the 
starting point from which accessing the separate applications;

4. open the separate applications in SEPARATE windows, allowing for 
custom app positioning (through "remember position/size" options);

5. allow for seamless INTEGRATION of the separate apps (drag and drop of 
contacts in emails, and the like).

I don't envy you, it won't be an easy task :)

Ciao

--
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco      e-mail:	rosselli at cisi.unito.it
Dipartimento di Scienze			rosselli at ling.unipi.it
del Linguaggio			Then spoke the thunder	DA
Universita' di Torino		Datta: what have we given?  (TSE)

  Hige sceal the heardra,     heorte the cenre,
  mod sceal the mare,       the ure maegen litlath.  (Maldon 312-3)