New Timepicker for Calendar
Taraman
show_bug.cgi?id=275253) which deals with the current Timepicker not
being intuitive.
I have a proposed new design, which I want to present here, to get
feedback if I'm on the right way.
To have a look at the mockup see:
http://www.adrario.de/mozilla/Timepicker.html
If you want to see the sourcecode, get it here (as 7-zip Archive)
http://www.adrario.de/mozilla/Timepicker.7z
It is in a stage where the controls are nearly completely functional
and I'm especially interested if it is as intuitive as I imagine it
and to get opinions how it can be improved.
The controls are described on the mockup-page.
Also if you think there are major issues in the design of the code -
please let me know.
The design has yet to be improved. ;-)
Looking forward for your comments.
Markus
Martin Freitag
> I'm currently working on Bug 275253 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
> show_bug.cgi?id=275253) which deals with the current Timepicker not
> being intuitive.
>
> I have a proposed new design, which I want to present here, to get
> feedback if I'm on the right way.
>
> To have a look at the mockup see:
> http://www.adrario.de/mozilla/Timepicker.html
Hihihihi, this is awsome! =)
Especially because direct clicking to the target-time works (besides
drag'n'drop and even the mouse-wheel).
I'm only wondering if single minutes could/should be available in
general without needing to press Shift, it _seems_ that this thing is
big enough to use it that way without problems, maybe worth a seperate
try/draft...(?)
regards
Martin
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
Nicholas Nelson
> Taraman schrieb:
>> I'm currently working on Bug 275253 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
>> show_bug.cgi?id=275253) which deals with the current Timepicker not
>> being intuitive.
>>
>> I have a proposed new design, which I want to present here, to get
>> feedback if I'm on the right way.
>>
>> To have a look at the mockup see:
>> http://www.adrario.de/mozilla/Timepicker.html
>
> Hihihihi, this is awsome! =)
> Especially because direct clicking to the target-time works (besides
> drag'n'drop and even the mouse-wheel).
> I'm only wondering if single minutes could/should be available in
> general without needing to press Shift, it _seems_ that this thing is
> big enough to use it that way without problems, maybe worth a seperate
> try/draft...(?)
> regards
>
> Martin
I like the idea of innovating the timepicker into a more intuitive
model, but I would much rather see a digital clock instead of either the
current model of selecting numbers from available boxes or this proposed
analog clock.
Something similar to hh:mm format with up and down buttons next to each
section would seem to be much more intuitive to me since that is how
almost all clocks and time is entered or displayed on computers.
I'm sure that others will disagree and would rather have the analog
clock for aesthetics, but that's where having an extension that changes
that feature might be a more useful model.
Just my $.02.
Nicholas Nelson
Decathlon
> I'm currently working on Bug 275253 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
> show_bug.cgi?id=275253) which deals with the current Timepicker not
> being intuitive.
>
> I have a proposed new design, which I want to present here, to get
> feedback if I'm on the right way.
>
> To have a look at the mockup see:http://www.adrario.de/mozilla/Timepicker.html
>
>
> It is in a stage where the controls are nearly completely functional
> and I'm especially interested if it is as intuitive as I imagine it
> and to get opinions how it can be improved.
> The controls are described on the mockup-page.
> Also if you think there are major issues in the design of the code -
> please let me know.
Personally I like it. In my opinion the only problem might be the use
of the Ctrl and Shift key that is less intuitive and should be
reduced. For example would be nice if the user could scroll the
minutes when the mouse cursor is on the outer circle and the hours
when the cursor is on the inner one.
The prototype allows to scroll single minutes with the mouse wheel
only when both Ctrl and Shift keys are pressed. With the previous
feature, only one key could be used but would be nice not using keys
at all. I understand that scroll single minutes would be annoying
because it would need to much scroll to get the right position and I
wouldn't know how to eliminate the problem other than a kind of
dynamic scroll. Fast scroll makes advance more minutes and slow
scroll single minutes? Don't know if this is possible or if worth the
effort though.
Also select single minutes with a click would be great, maybe with
Shift+click or, better, without keys at all. Like already said by
Martin Freitag, the clock seems big enough to set single minutes
directly (maybe only when the user clicks next to the outer border?).
Another thing could be to separate minute-hand and hour-hand behavior
when minutes scroll or minute-hand is dragged, i.e. don't make advance
the hour-hand when the minute-hand pass over 0.
Regards.
Peter Weilbacher
> I like the idea of innovating the timepicker into a more intuitive
> model, but I would much rather see a digital clock instead of either the
> current model of selecting numbers from available boxes or this proposed
> analog clock.
>
> Something similar to hh:mm format with up and down buttons next to each
> section would seem to be much more intuitive to me since that is how
> almost all clocks and time is entered or displayed on computers.
I tend to agree. While this new clock definitely has a coolness factor
and it's fun to play around with (and I think it's indeed more efficient
than the current calendar timepicker once one has found out all the
features), something that uses near-standard controls and a digital clock
would be better to have as default. As nice as this analog clock is, most
users won't find out how to operate it in an effective way.
Peter
Gervase Markham
> Something similar to hh:mm format with up and down buttons next to each
> section would seem to be much more intuitive to me since that is how
> almost all clocks and time is entered or displayed on computers.
>
> I'm sure that others will disagree and would rather have the analog
> clock for aesthetics
It's not a question of aesthetics, it's a question of speed. I can set
this new timepicker to 12:30pm in about one second with two clicks. How
long does it take to enter a time with the digital model with textboxes
or those ridiculous spinbuttons? Also, imagine this on a touch-based
interface. Sheer joy.
My first reaction when I saw this was "oh goodness, no". But actually, I
think it's great. It obviously needs some graphic design love, but that
can easily come later.
I love the part where you can wind it forwards past 12pm and the inner
dial changes from 1-12 to 12-23. Brilliant.
I think that you actually might be able to make it even simpler, as follows:
- Enlarge the numbers on the outside ring
- Make it so clicking anywhere on the number itself jumps to that
five-minute interval
- Eliminate the "hold shift to set single minutes" feature, which I
think is an over-complication. People can click and drag to move the
hand around; there won't be a problem with not being able to set it to a
5-minute interval if you do what I say above with the numbers.
Also:
- Have the set time appear on top of the hands rather than below them
Great work!
Gerv
Marcel Berteler
Although the clock looks good and might be easy for some people, all
other times are reflected in their digital format:
1) If you receive a meeting request, the time is printed there in
digital format
2) I you open up the New Meeting interface, the time is printed in
digital format and you will only see the analog time-picker once you
edit the time.
3) If you open up the calendar, the times are printed in digital format
If the problem is that people can not read digital times, than all times
should be represented in analog format, which I think is a) not the main
problem and b) almost impossible to do.
If the real problem is the time picker, than I think a better and more
intuitive digital picker needs to be found.
Personally I like the current time picker, although I might actually
prefer the vertical time picker as proposed by Michiel at the end of 2004.
What I like about the current time picker is that with 1 click I can
select all hours within a day. No additional click required to switch
between AM and PM.
What would make the current picker maybe more user friendly to those
using AM/PM is using the machine settings and showing 12 hours to pick
from and an additional AM/PM button.
What ever makes it into the next version, please make sure we do *not*
have to pick AM/PM if we set our machines to use a 24 hour representation.
Marcel
Anil SRIVASTAVA
Anil
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-calendar mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-calendar
>
_______________
Anil SRIVASTAVA | anil.sr...@Sun.COM | Sun Microsystems, Inc
Andrew DeFaria
I love the part where you can wind it forwards past 12pm and the inner dial changes from 1-12 to 12-23. Brilliant.
Andrew DeFaria
Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze these dangly things here and drink whatever comes out"?
Patrick Cloke
I agree. Why can't we just have an hh:mm format with up/down buttons
(or perhaps if you click on the number it has a drop down with all choices?)
Maybe its a generational thing, but I know a lot of my friends don't
even know how to read an analog clock (I do, if you're wondering). I'm
pretty sure picking the time by it would be out of their skill set.
I'm glad to see effort is being put in to make the UI easier to use, but
I think this is more focused on "this would be really neat" as opposed
to "this would be useful and streamline performance".
-Patrick
Michiel van Leeuwen
> I agree. Why can't we just have an hh:mm format with up/down buttons (or
> perhaps if you click on the number it has a drop down with all choices?)
The huge downside of such a timepicker is that it requires a lot of
click to set the time. For example, to move from 9:00 to 11:30 using
up/down buttons requires 2 clicks for the hour and 6 for the minutes (if
5 minutes intervals are used). The goal of the timepicker is to reduce
the work needed to be done when using the mouse. From that point of
view, the analog click is much better then the up/down buttons or a
dropdown with numbers.
> Maybe its a generational thing, but I know a lot of my friends don't
> even know how to read an analog clock (I do, if you're wondering). I'm
> pretty sure picking the time by it would be out of their skill set.
It optional to use the timepicker! It would be a dropdown, coming from a
textual time. You normally only see the text 11:30. Only when you use
the mouse to change the time, you see the analog clock. If you use the
keyboard, you just enter the new time. No need to use the timepicker.
Michiel
Patrick Cloke
> On 10/23/09 17:39, Patrick Cloke wrote:
>> I agree. Why can't we just have an hh:mm format with up/down buttons (or
>> perhaps if you click on the number it has a drop down with all choices?)
>
> The huge downside of such a timepicker is that it requires a lot of
> click to set the time. For example, to move from 9:00 to 11:30 using
> up/down buttons requires 2 clicks for the hour and 6 for the minutes (if
> 5 minutes intervals are used). The goal of the timepicker is to reduce
> the work needed to be done when using the mouse. From that point of
> view, the analog click is much better then the up/down buttons or a
> dropdown with numbers.
If its about reducing clicks, how does this new UI reduce clicks? If
anything, I think it makes it more complicated (with using ctrl and
shift, etc.)
>> Maybe its a generational thing, but I know a lot of my friends don't
>> even know how to read an analog clock (I do, if you're wondering). I'm
>> pretty sure picking the time by it would be out of their skill set.
>
> It optional to use the timepicker! It would be a dropdown, coming from a
> textual time. You normally only see the text 11:30. Only when you use
> the mouse to change the time, you see the analog clock. If you use the
> keyboard, you just enter the new time. No need to use the timepicker.
Ah, I seem to have missed that point. I assume that means you'd be able
to type in the time then. That sounds good!
-Patrick
dempseyvv
guy.
Keep it simple, use always the 1-minute interval as that covers also
the 5-minute interval.
Pascal
The only issue I see : the hours are smaller than the minutes, hence it
will be faster to easier to change the minutes (whereas users will
nearly always change the hour, and not always change the minutes).
Nothing much to do against this...
By the way, I assume that there is some kind of "gravity" option which
rounds a click on the minutes to the nearest 5 minutes. If yes, there
could be an option to only display multiples of 15 minutes, which would
make clicking faster for people like me (I almost never use multiple of
5 minutes; if I need it say twice a year, I can type it instead of the
timepicker, just like I type train times like 8:03).
Pascal
Taraman
This is what I got out of that and some comments on that:
1. The timepicker seems to get more approval than refusal.
2. Some fear, that an analog clock is not intuitive for everyone -
especially since not everyone can read it and thus not set it.
As stated by Michiel, it is not mandatory to use. You can still enter
the time digitally as you can now.
Additionally it would be possible to turn the digital display in the
timepicker into a small timepicker itself which could work with e.g.
up-down controls for hours and minutes separate.
3. The 5 minute intervals are beleived to be not needed.
I think for quick setting it is better to have these intervals.
I could imagine to have 1 minute intervals for dragging and keep the 5
minute intervals for clicking.
Most of the time you will need 5 Minute intervals anyway with
appointments
3a. One idea by Gervase Markham was to set the five minute intervals
by clicking on the numbers itself.
Even though I found it a great idea at first, I would not do that
because I want the clock to be as much as possible skinnable.
I believe, that making the numbers clickable would restrict the
creativity for some designs.
clicking in a sector fulfils the task just as good.
4. 24h vs. am/pm
The plan is to have the clock displayed according to the local
computers setting.
If you have a time format with am/pm the inner ring will not change
and the digital time will also be displayed in 12h format.
Since the calendar works with 24h internally, this is what i
programmed first for the mockup.
Using an inner ring with 24 hours would mean that it handles
differently on 24 and 12 hour systems - which is not desireable (a 24
hour scale with twice 1-12 would also be a little awkward...)
So having to click once more if you want to change from morning to
afternoon is in my opinion inevitable.
5. Two comments were on the speed of the workflow.
This is what it comes down to. I agree with the comments, that this
timepicker allows quick setting of times.
The question is, if this is also possible intuitively.
I think the dragging of clock-hands is the most natural way to try.
maybe you find the clicking-way quite quick if you use it. The mouse
wheel is more of an extra for the nerds who try everything.
I also think, that using a tooltip explaining the clicking possibility
may help here.
Conclusion:
I keep on working on this thing and take the comments given here into
account.
Markus
Gervase Markham
> 3. The 5 minute intervals are beleived to be not needed.
> I think for quick setting it is better to have these intervals.
> I could imagine to have 1 minute intervals for dragging and keep the 5
> minute intervals for clicking.
> Most of the time you will need 5 Minute intervals anyway with
> appointments
It's true. I find single-minute only useful for train times, where I
want to store the exact time so I can find the train on the departures
board.
> 3a. One idea by Gervase Markham was to set the five minute intervals
> by clicking on the numbers itself.
> Even though I found it a great idea at first, I would not do that
> because I want the clock to be as much as possible skinnable.
> I believe, that making the numbers clickable would restrict the
> creativity for some designs.
> clicking in a sector fulfils the task just as good.
Then another option would be to have single-clicks use five minute
intervals, but allow one-minute granularity when dragging.
Gerv
Marcel Berteler
> Thanks for all the feedback!
>
> This is what I got out of that and some comments on that:
>
> 1. The timepicker seems to get more approval than refusal.
sure if that would be enough to call a victory yet. ;-)
>
> 2. Some fear, that an analog clock is not intuitive for everyone -
> especially since not everyone can read it and thus not set it.
> As stated by Michiel, it is not mandatory to use. You can still enter
> the time digitally as you can now.
rid of the digital time-picker.
> Additionally it would be possible to turn the digital display in the
> timepicker into a small timepicker itself which could work with e.g.
> up-down controls for hours and minutes separate.
The current time picker allows one to select a time in max 3 clicks,
whereby the up-down will require way more clicks. They can not be compared.
>
> 3. The 5 minute intervals are beleived to be not needed.
> I think for quick setting it is better to have these intervals.
> I could imagine to have 1 minute intervals for dragging and keep the 5
> minute intervals for clicking.
> Most of the time you will need 5 Minute intervals anyway with
> appointments
I for one have never used the current option to select a 1 minute
interval. I wonder how many people actually use it.
> 5. Two comments were on the speed of the workflow.
> This is what it comes down to. I agree with the comments, that this
> timepicker allows quick setting of times.
The real question is, is it quicker than the current one?
I find the prototype slower to use than the current time-picker as it
requires more visual involvement and clues than the digital picker.
Maybe this is because the clock has the outer-ring of minutes which I
have never seen on any clock before, or at least not that prominent. The
place where for example the number 3 should be now has 15 written while
the inner circle has 15 written because it was set for PM. This confuses
me for a moment and I have to look at the bigger picture (what is the
relationship between the hands) and even check the digital clock at the
bottom to finally be sure what time the clock tell me it is.
Maybe a new design will improve this but for now, I find the current
clock confusing.
Have a look at this time-picker:
http://www.pimlicosoftware.com/Pimlical-TimePicker.gif
For some reason it seems to be easier to the eye.
> The question is, if this is also possible intuitively.
Intuitive? probably yes, but after using the application on a weekly
base intuition is soon replaced by automatism. And that is where speed,
mouse distance and mouse clicks counts.
> I think the dragging of clock-hands is the most natural way to try.
> maybe you find the clicking-way quite quick if you use it. The mouse
> wheel is more of an extra for the nerds who try everything.
> I also think, that using a tooltip explaining the clicking possibility
> may help here.
>
> Conclusion:
> I keep on working on this thing and take the comments given here into
> account.
>
> Markus
If I must be really honest I would hate to see the current digital
picker be replaced by the analogue picker as it is now. hopefully an
improved clock design will swing my vote.
Marcel
Peter Lairo
> To have a look at the mockup see:
> http://www.adrario.de/mozilla/Timepicker.html
>
Here's a screenshot of Lotus Organizer's great time-picker:
- Dragging the start/end times changes the start/end time in increments
of 5 minutes (it should probably be 30 minute increments).
- Dragging the duration time marker in the center moves the whole
schedule in increments of 5 minutes.
- Holding the SHIFT key changes the increments to 30 minutes (it should
probably be the reverse: no modifier = 30 min., with modifier = 5 min
increments).
- It is possible to type the time directly into the box above.
- The UP/DOWN cursor keys increase/decrease the time by 5 minutes (same
for the "duration" box). If the time-line is showing, then the schedule
is moved in increments of 5 minutes.
- Clicking anywhere on the time-line moves the start of the appointment
to that point in time.
All hail Lotus Organizer! :-)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
The browser you can trust: www.Firefox.com
Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com
Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
Anthropogenic Global Warming skepsis: http://tinyurl.com/AGW-Skepsis
Jason Oster
skeptical. But on trying it out, I find it to make a lot more sense than
the 12x4 button array.
For reference, I work for a small IT shop, and have been tasked with
deploying Thunderbird/Lightning to ~150 employees. It's always a real
pain to explain how the time picker works. But with a familiar analog
clock, I think it will be a breeze; "Push the button that looks like a
little clock. Now you can choose your time just by moving the hands..."
Simple, and elegant! Note some additional comments below:
On 10/25/2009 02:24 PM, Taraman wrote:
> 4. 24h vs. am/pm
> The plan is to have the clock displayed according to the local
> computers setting.
> If you have a time format with am/pm the inner ring will not change
> and the digital time will also be displayed in 12h format.
> Since the calendar works with 24h internally, this is what i
> programmed first for the mockup.
> Using an inner ring with 24 hours would mean that it handles
> differently on 24 and 12 hour systems - which is not desireable (a 24
> hour scale with twice 1-12 would also be a little awkward...)
> So having to click once more if you want to change from morning to
> afternoon is in my opinion inevitable.
There are a few additional options here; a full 24-hour clock does sound
kind of weird, but apparently it's also acceptable:
http://aliainegypt.muslimpad.com/files/2007/09/24-hour-wall-clock.jpg
Personally, I wouldn't suggest that kind of a clock interface, but
looking at some other analog clock designs brought about the following idea:
* Split the "inner-hours-ring" into yet another, deeper inner ring to
indicate PM/13-24 hours. Kind of like this clock:
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/mclass/24hrclock.jpg
* Give the early 12 hours and light background and dark text, and light
text/dark background for the later hours. For AM/PM locales, the rings
will both show 1-12. For 24-hour locales, the inner-most ring shows 13-24.
* Clicking one or the other hour ring sets the hour directly. Dragging
can still 'flow over' into the other ring (visible in the digital
display) and probably some other kind of visual cue, like putting a
text-shadow behind the selected hour.
Best of both worlds?