[jitsi-dev] [jitsi] Update dialog to add contact (#13)


#1

Based on a discussion on the mailing list I did some changes to the dialog used to add new contacts. I re-ordered the controls, renamed the labels, added tool tips. Additionally, I added faint gray prompts to the input fields (which will vanish if text is inserted) to guide the user. Below you will see a screen-shot of the changed dialog.

![jitsi-new-add-account-dialog](https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/112226/1730784/466c5bce-62ef-11e3-9397-0bd9734e3da0.png)

You can merge this Pull Request by running:

  git pull https://github.com/tomka/jitsi update-add-contact-dialog

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

  https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13

-- Commit Summary --

  * Add contact dialog: reorganize input fields
  * Add contact dialog: rename name and address labels
  * Add contact dialog: add tool tips
  * Add contact dialog: support prompts in text fields
  * Add contact dialog: have prompts in name and contact fields
  * Add contact dialog: focus name field by default

-- File Changes --

    M resources/languages/resources.properties (10)
    M resources/languages/resources_de.properties (10)
    M src/net/java/sip/communicator/impl/gui/main/contactlist/AddContactDialog.java (105)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13.patch
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13.diff


#2

Your changes work well for me.

In the "Select group" tooltip, I would probably uppercase "(Optional)" since it comes after a question mark.

I also wondered about dropping the word "Select" from the labels on the left side. We don't say "Type name" and "Type IM address or VoIP" for the other two fields.

"Select account" -> "Account"
"Select group" -> "Group"

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30392701


#3

Thanks, looks good!
- Could you please replace the example addresses with something like "John Doe" / "john.doe@example.com" (so it's clear that it's an example)?
- Please don't update the translations (resources_xx.properties) directly - they will get overwritten with the next commit from [Pootle](http://translate.jitsi.org).

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30395622


#4

It might make more sense to have the "IM address or VOIP number" first as that's the most important and not optional, with "Name / Nickname (optional)" second. Although I suppose we should consider whether Name should really be optional, as with VOIP numbers without any Name the user will just end up with a list of numbers with probably no idea who they belong to!

I think including Nickname might help to make it more obvious to users that they can put whatever they like here and it doesn't need to be the contacts actual name but I guess just "Name (optional)" might be enough to convey that. The tooltip could explain that if nothing is entered here, the IM address / VOIP number will be displayed instead.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30418694


#5

Thanks for the suggestions. I added "(Optional)" also to the name field, and made it uppercase for both occurrences. The name field's label reads now "Name or nickname". I removed the "Select" from "Select account" and "Select group" for consistency. The examples have been updated to "John Doe" and "john.doe@example.com". I also removed all changed from the translation files. The rebased changes will be (force) pushed to this branch/pull request in a minute.

I left the order of input fields as depicted above, because I think the reasoning of David is like most users think about a new contact ("This is Lisa and she has the following IM address/phone number" instead of the other way around). I can see that it would be logical to group optional fields (and don't have them as first input), though. However, I think having this order (and maybe making the field not optional anymore) is closer to the how many people think about a new contact. Still, I feel *a bit* unsure about this.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30428488


#6

Do you think it would be nice to distinguish between the mandatory and optional fields? I mean, "Name:" is first but it's optional.

Pavel Tankov

···

On 12.дек..2013, at 07:38, Tom Kazimiers wrote:

Based on a discussion on the mailing list I did some changes to the dialog used to add new contacts. I re-ordered the controls, renamed the labels, added tool tips. Additionally, I added faint gray prompts to the input fields (which will vanish if text is inserted) to guide the user. Below you will see a screen-shot of the changed dialog.

You can merge this Pull Request by running

  git pull https://github.com/tomka/jitsi update-add-contact-dialog
Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

  https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13

Commit Summary

Add contact dialog: reorganize input fields
Add contact dialog: rename name and address labels
Add contact dialog: add tool tips
Add contact dialog: support prompts in text fields
Add contact dialog: have prompts in name and contact fields
Add contact dialog: focus name field by default
File Changes

M resources/languages/resources.properties (10)
M resources/languages/resources_de.properties (10)
M src/net/java/sip/communicator/impl/gui/main/contactlist/AddContactDialog.java (105)
Patch Links:

https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13.patch
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13.diff
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@jitsi.org
Unsubscribe instructions and other list options:
http://lists.jitsi.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


#7

Are the recent changes reasonable for everyone or is there anything that still needs some work? I could spend some time on it today and tomorrow in case you want see this in the 2.3 release.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30575191


#8

tomka: 2.3 is already on a string freeze (so that translators aren't chasing a moving target). I assume they'll probably wait till after 2.3 is released before merging this pull request.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30796482


#9

dbolton, thanks for the explanation. A string freeze makes perfect sense for a release and it therefore makes sense to not have this pull request merged before 2.3 is released.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-30843044


#10

I'm ready to merge this, but have you signed the [BCA](http://bluejimp.com/bca.pdf) and sent it to @emcho? I'm sorry if you've already done this, but I couldn't find a reference.

Oh, and there's a small spelling mistake: blanck doesn't have a c in it.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-32101774


#11

Thanks for the update @ibauersachs. I've corrected the typo and amended the original commit to include the fix (therefore the rebase). @emcho should have gotten a mail from me with the signed BCA some minutes ago.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-32103896


#12

Hey folks,

Tom, thanks for your contribution!

I am not entirely comfortable with the new layout and name changes. It feels a bit arbitrary to me and mostly the result of personal preferences than an objective improvement.

Some other details:

* Having "Name" appear first for seems misleading since it is entirely optional (I personally very rarely enter anything there), it is often retrieved from server resources and even when entered has no relation to who you are actually adding.
* While I understand the motivation for removing "Display Name", using "Name or nickname" might be confusing especially in protocols where a "nickname" of sorts is used as an identifier. AIM is an example.
* I don't understand the motivation for placing the account choice third since it needs to always be selected. I am not saying it's that much of a problem to have it there, but again, I don't understand why we would want to move it anywhere else than where it currently is. I don't see how it could be causing confusion and even less, how placing it third would be resolving that.
* I am not at all convinced that "IM Address or VoIP Number" is any less cryptic for a significant number of people than "ID or Number". There are situations where the values added in this field are neither an IM address nor a VoIP number, but mostly en identifier.

I do like the examples though, and I don't mind moving Group last. Also, I liked the fact that the original example used a female name so we could have also opted for Jane Doe.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-32104724


#13

Hi Emil,

thanks for your feedback.

I am not entirely comfortable with the new layout and name changes. It feels a bit arbitrary to me and mostly the result of personal preferences than an objective improvement.

I, too, think the proposed layout isn't perfect and in some parts a subjective proposal. We briefly discussed ways to change the current layout on the mailing list, and I came up with this to get an idea what it could look like.

Having "Name" appear first for seems misleading since it is entirely optional (I personally very rarely enter anything there), it is often retrieved from server resources and even when entered has no relation to who you are actually adding.

This is a valid point and I too rarely enter enything there. However, I find David's resoning also valid (from the mailing list):

Start with the name. Almost every contact manager does this (take a look at email, address books (even paper address books), IM clients, etc.) This way the user starts with what they know.

So maybe starting with the name is something many people are used to? I concur that grouping optional and required things together would make sense as well. Well, I am undecided here. So I had a look at several IM and how they order these fields:

Pidgin: "Account", "Buddy's username", "(Optional) Alias", "(Optional) Invite message", "Add buddy to group"
Comodo messenger: "Account", "Contact's ID", "Group ID", "Reason"
Trillian: "Account", "Username", "Display Name", "Group", "Reason"

Adium: "Contact Type", "Jabber ID", "Alias", "In Group", "Add to accounts" (Depending on contact type, "Jabber ID" changes to VoIP number, etc.)
Yahoo messenger: "The person's Messenger ID or email address", "Network"
AIM: "Buddy Group", "Screen Name"

Half of them start with the account and one could argue that these projects have probably discussed the very same quesions already. Actually, these clients differ only in one respect from Jitsi: They put the group field last. You said you don't miind moving it last and so I'd like to keep this change.

While I understand the motivation for removing "Display Name", using "Name or nickname" might be confusing especially in protocols where a "nickname" of sorts is used as an identifier. AIM is an example.

Fair enough. What about "Alias" or "(Optional) Alias"?

David's rationale from the mailing list:

Simplify the label "Display name" to "Name". "Display Name" is unnecessary technical terminology, and since there is no other Name fields in the dialog, the technical distinction is unnecessary. In really life no one introduces himself as "Hi, my full name is Joseph Bloggs, but I go by the display name, Joe." They just say, "Hi, my name is Joe Bloggs."

But I can see, that this "technical" distinction might be needed.

I don't understand the motivation for placing the account choice third since it needs to always be selected. I am not saying it's that much of a problem to have it there, but again, I don't understand why we would want to move it anywhere else than where it currently is. I don't see how it could be causing confusion and even less, how placing it third would be resolving that.

I don't think there is much confusion involved in having it first (like many IM clients do). However, I feel the new layout could be closer to how a user might think about a new contact: "This Jane Doe, her phone number/ID is jane.doe@example.com and therefore I need to add her to my VoIP/XMPP account.". Additionally, I feel the user interface looks cleaner when both text fields are together and when they come first. Dropdowns feel more "heavier" to me and they distract me in the current dialog from the thoughts about a new user that come to my mind first. This, however, might be indeed personal taste.

I am not at all convinced that "IM Address or VoIP Number" is any less cryptic for a significant number of people than "ID or Number". There are situations where the values added in this field are neither an IM address nor a VoIP number, but mostly en identifier.

This might be true. So would it be an option to make this label dependent on the selected account type? This would of course imply that the account dropdown comes before this field. Alternatively, one could solve it like Adium: They first have a dropdown for the account type they want to add and change the label accordingly. The screenshot suggests that they also adjust the displayed options for own accounts to add the new contact to.

However, this might be overkill and the addition of an example text is enough to make it clear.

I do like the examples though, and I don't mind moving Group last. Also, I liked the fact that the original example used a female name so we could have also opted for Jane Doe.

If there are no opjections, I would change the name to Jane Doe as I too like the female name as an example. Like you suggested via email, I will add a separate pull request containing the examples, the tool tips and moving down the group field. So we could continue discussing the re-ordering and re-naming here.

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-32579658


#14

The post before links the factored out pull request of commits that seemed to me as something we could agree on. Bases on these commits, I rebased the remaing ones to have something up-to-date to discuss here. (The commits of the other branch show up here as well, because they too haven't been merged yet. The last commit of #15 is f6a317f.)

···

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-32581325


#15

Closing this in favor of #15

···

---
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#issuecomment-218828959


#16

Closed #13.

···

---
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi/pull/13#event-658916230