Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

16

11 items is a difficult number of things to arrange in more than one line, but it's very easy around a circle. How about something like the following which might still be inkeeping with your needs I also decreased the size of the icons in relation to the labels in my version, but this is just a mock up anyway - you can obviously take the idea and adapt ...


9

Just tried to improve the concept taken from above designs. I tried to group functionality that works together. Data sources | Arcgis server | coordinate systems describe connections to external systems. Queries and Maps (i guess the mostly used functions) have moved to right hand corner where users will find it more easy to locate. Product logo is ...


9

1. You could split it into logical sections, where you have first 3 colums with these: "Datasources", "ArcGis servers" "Users", "Roles" "Tools", "Settings" And then the rest on a single line below: "Coordinate Systems", "Maps", "Queries", "Layouts", "Reports" 2. Have the Esri logo at top left, and the Dekho logo at top right. This way, the symetry ...


8

The primary thing to consider in terms of UX when using SharePoint: SharePoint is shitty UX. That's about it. It's a beast and horrific at most tasks. It does excel at a few tasks, but content management is definitely not one of them and building custom interfaces to accommodate better UX is not a priority of the software toolset. The only reasons to ...


5

I think the CMS designers are probably right. The problem is that it is perfectly possible that certain pages are not valid in other languages - the entire site structure MAY be different between languages, and so the current location is not necessarily valid in a new language. Of course, your particular site may well be identical across languages, but if ...


5

Stay away from SharePoint at all costs if you want a good UI. I am on my second SharePoint project (large corporate IT, 7-figure project). End users throughout company are reluctant to use it because: The navigation is confusing and terribly unintuitive. Everything is 5 clicks deep; and that is if you are lucky. It is extremely ugly out of box. I'd like ...


4

In my experience, most WYSIWYG editors are too limited even for the non-tech-savvy users, and at the end of the day are more confusing than their dashboard counterparts. When a novice user sees a WYSIWYG editor, they expect it to display exactly what they'll see on the published page. However for all but the most basic of elements this is usually not the ...


3

SharePoint accessibility - specifically Section 508 compliance - is severely lacking. There are many pointers to bolt-on accessibility (e.g. earlier efforts at Accessibility Kit for SharePoint (AKS)) and 'more accessible mode' but nothing that from a systems architecture works in anything other than a single server small office implementation. The default ...


3

More than any books I have found getting a clear expectation of requirements from the end users is key. Along with this, spend the time to find out what they are using now and watch how they use it. Some people hate WISWYG editors because they think they function like MS Word, which we know they don't. For situations like that abstracting people from that ...


3

That's a big question! There's no doubt that SP2010 offers a better UX than its predecessors, but any SharePoint collaboration site is still going to be a compromise when it comes to UX and UI design. The largest issue is the restriction you face when working with web-parts and the baked in controls. This is always going to limit what you can achieve with ...


3

URL changes are bad when they break links. Links keep themselves alive for way longer than most people think, and so loosing an inbound link to your site is very bad for both SEO and UX. Yes, redirects are a possible solution, but then you need to maintain a history of all the changes, which isn't exactly a nice solution. I would suggest a URL scheme like ...


3

First, should I allow a user to change the url of a already created page? I think this has some business interest in it, so if there is no conflict there, why shouldn't the user be able to change the URL of the page? What if they make an error? Second, if I allow the url to change, should I deploy any kind of mechanism to redirect automatically in case ...


3

Direct manipulation / WYSIWYG interfaces (your #2) are easier for the novice user. This way they don't need to understand the hierarchy or the internal structure of the website, and they don't need to guess which category of the dashboard contains which settings, etc. They just locate the item they wish to change and work on it directly. They might take the ...


3

The convention is that the site id or logo is placed at top left and links to the home page or main page of the site. The reason this might not be obvious on your image is that the logo is not at top left, so if you were to move it, it would become more obvious via it's association with convention, as seen in the first image below. It might also help the ...


3

It's more convient to return after task completion to the previous step. It creates consistency. In your case the flow is (P – page, A – action): (P) List of items --> (A) Add item (P) Item creation --> (A) Save (P) List of items A single mouse click for creation a new item is quick and simple action. Also user could take a little rest between items ...


2

At Imazen, all of our own websites are created with a mix of 95% Markdown (Kramdown) and 5% Slim. The trouble with any XML-based solution is that it's resistant to versioning, diff generation, and automated merges. Only context-free syntaxes (such as Markdown, Wiki/Creole, etc) can effectively be used in a distributed version control system (like git) or ...


2

Doesn't Wikipedia count as "large content editing"? I think they have successfully proven that markdown can work for large content, so you could look at how they implement it. Bare in mind that the user group that creates and edits articles is not the consumer group, and what they find simple may not apply to most users.


2

1 is much more CONTENT management. The content is separate from the presentation and the tasks are dealt with from a content-centric perspective. 2 is much more about PAGE DESIGN management. The content is intertwined wholly with the presentation and you modify it as one. In general, I find the biggest failing of most Content Management Systems is that ...


2

As you say sometimes a left or indeed vertical navigation is a necessity. In terms of design guidelines I've three for you. Find out - if you are working with a CMS - what, if any character limit is set as a result of the CMS configuration for navigation labels, many CMS products have such limits. If so make sure your design allows for the maximum. If ...


2

I'll make it short: Yes, they should. Just be sure to use 301 redirections from the old URLs.


2

From the administrator's point of view, it is useful to have the ability to control the content of the intro text rather than just truncating the full version. This is usually best achieved with two separate fields. I would however suggest that you make the intro field optional and fall back to using the first (e.g.) 100 words of the full article, so that ...


2

When I used to work in translations, I found this type of layout very convenient: download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups


2

This ought to be posted to ux.stackexchange.com. However, I think you should try to step into your users' shoes. If they click on the change language button (or whatever interface is used), are they expecting to be redirected to the homepage? I think in most cases, they probably expect to see a translation of the current page. To make this more clear, you ...


2

You can populate English by default based on your users. So we can move to top for other language option, then we populate the other editor options like below Image. You can remove the "preview option" if you have "preview" button after the submit.


2

Vertical workflow is more natural than horizontal unless the user is comparing content side-by-side. Moreover, horizontal arrangement requires users to have very wide monitors to work comfortably. Finally, there's no need to force users into a particular sequence of languages - let them decide what version is going to be posted first. Thus, the mock-up will ...


2

I'm not sure this can be 'solved' by a Pro and Con list being discussed. There are at least 3 aspects that should be considered: 1. User Experience Making sure the site is usable for both consumers as well as internal people. Very important and usually the domain of UX people. 2. Technical expertise Making sure the CMS fits into the most likely existing ...


2

In SharePoint Online (Office 365) this page is called Service Overview which is the first thing you see on the dashboard (link on the left navigation). If displays all services, their health and planned maintenance. It may be appropriate to your case.


1

SharePoint 2010 is actually not bad. At least in comparison to previous versions. I am a SharePoint MCP and .Net developer – so I may be slightly biased – but you can do a lot of really good stuff with SharePoint, if you are prepared to put in the work. The real problem is that the expertise in building and supporting very cool SharePoint websites is not ...


1

It depends a lot on the type of content you expect to be posted. If people are posting messages about HTML code, then treat it as regular text because the tags are part of the subject matter. If HTML code sharing isn't part of the expected messages, don't show any tags. It makes things harder to read, confuses people, etc. In this case, make a blanket rule ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible