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 email@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: