On 18 Jun 2008, at 20:32, Terri Oda wrote:
[...] I've opened up a new page on the wiki to get more of a process going:
This is great, but how should we use it? :)
I think the easiest is simply to go through all settings, decide what
is needed/not needed.
Then group the relevant stuff, and then do categorization.
This should probably just be done by 1-3 people and then submitted as
a proposal.
But how easy is it to actually improve the web UI? It was said in
another letter that it is generated from various source fragments, so
is there the necessary abstraction in Mailman to allow the web UI to
be improved?
If it is feasible to redo the UI for 2.x then I’ll gladly submit some
more complete suggestions.
[...] 4. Labels are too verbose, contributing with noise to the overall
view, and the “Details for «the_mailman_option_name»” under
each label does not help in this regard.I've got mixed feelings about this. The labels do contribute to
noise, but they also provide the ability for me to tell people
"change the setting with name $foo" *or* describe the description if
I'm not near a computer to check the stuff myself. The longer
labels also make it easier for people looking at the interface the
first time to figure out what things do at a glance instead of
having to click each details button to find the one they want.
My main problem with the verbose (right-aligned) labels is that it
makes skimming very difficult.
A few days ago I created a list where I wanted to allow posts from non-
members and I spent at least 10 minutes skimming page after page for
this setting.
Eventually I found it under “Privacy Options… → [Sender
Filters]” with this label:
Action to take for postings from non-members
for which no explicit action is defined
(Details for generic_nonmember_action)The first six words of that label has no value with respect to telling
what it is. For optimal skimming, the first few words should have
words that are unique to the option. I also am not sure about the
importance of stressing that this is for the case where there is no
explicit action defined (sort of goes without saying).
So here I would propose something like:
Non-members have their posts: ( ) Accepted
(o) Held (for the list admin to approve) ( ) Rejected (they receive a bounce) ( ) Discarded (no bounce is sent back)
I also added info about each choice hopefully making the previous
“more info” link unnecessary.
Another example of the long verbose labels are (in same category):
List of non-member addresses whose postings should
be automatically accepted. (Details for
accept_these_nonmembers)In my mind a simple label of “white-listed non-members” would
suffice. And back to the point about skimming, there are actually four
settings which all start with “List of non-member addresses whose”,
meaning that when skimming, this is 20 words I have to read which say
nothing about the actual option. For the above, it is actually the
last word (of first sentence) which makes all the difference compared
e.g. to this setting on same page:
List of non-member addresses whose postings should
be automatically rejected. (Details for
discard_these_nonmembers)So we have two paragraphs of 15 words each which in the first sentence
only differ in the last word.
So while I agree with you in theory, I don’t think this verbosity
holds the value you assign it ;)