Re: [Synaptic-devel] interface changes in 0.51

[Sebastian Heinlein]

On Di, 2004-07-20 at 13:15 +0200, Frank Van Damme wrote:

Hello Frank,

> However, I am not entirely happy with the changes in the user interface in 
> the 
> latest version. 

There is always space for improving and we are happy to hear where we
can improve. So thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts and comments
about synaptic.

> - in previous versions the filters where more accessible. Now the user has to 
> choose between selecting a filter and viewing a specific section.

We are trying to orientate more on cases of use instead of pure
providing of functionality. Could you give some or one use case where
you really missed this? 

> - the tab sheets at the bottom have disappeared, and are only accessible by 
> the entry "properties" in the context menu. Imho the long description, 
> dependencies and other package info are basic stuff that should not be hidden 
> away in a popup window. 

At first the dialog "properties" is now non modal in version 0.52 - this
should make it more usable (it was modal because of technical reasons). 

The long description is always shown in the main window. 

It is not about hiding basic stuff, but about removing not often used
stuff from the main window to avoid cluttering. Also many users were
confused by the technical stuff presented in the main window.
Furthermore I don't know why the dependency tab should be so important:
the dependency handling should be done by apt/synaptic and not by the
user.


> - I can not find back the ability to install a particular version of a given 
> package, which - for me - is a good reason to use Synaptic instead of 
> command-line apt.

We dropped this feature, since it was not implemented in a clear way.
But it is now back in version 0.52. The corresponding menu item "Force
version..." is located in the menu "Package"


> - In previous versions the Keep, Install and Remove (which are the basic 
> functions of Synaptic) were clearly visible, which isn't the case anymore.

Have you had any problems finding this functionality? At first I also
wanted to implement buttons for this common functions, but Gustavo came
up with the great status icon menu, which I think is sufficient, since
the checkbox like status icon seems to attract users in a magical way:
before that we had have received some complains, that the checkbox would
not work properly.


> - I find the way of choosing between sections/status/alphabetic, find 
> history, 
> or filter confusing. Imho it would be better to:
>   * remove the "filter" entry from that menu and restore the filter dropdown 
> at the top of the window like it was before.

Which filters do you miss? How should the find results be handled? The
"search filter" was quite ugly.


>   * Add a dropdown to the "find" text field showing the history.

Are you talking about the find dialog or the removed "quick" search?
There is already a combobox in the find dialog. The old quick search was
a dead end for many users since it didn't provide enough visual
feedback. I would favor adding key shortcuts (pressing "b" would jump to
the first package that starts with the initial letter "b") and a instant
search field, that you can find e.g. in rhythmbox, muine or epiphany-
webbookmarks. But we haven't yet found any way to get an acceptable
speed of the instant search.


>   * the sort function is useful bout could be implemented even more 
> powerful :) what about this:

I don't know if this is also the case in 0.51, but you can sort the
package list by clicking on the header of the column.


>     + Remove the dropdown.
>     + instead, split the current list in two. The top half can be used to put 
> any of (status, section, alphabetic) in order. Based on this the bottom part 
> can show a tree:

> ... maybe a simpler solution is preferable but I wouldn't keep using the 
> dropdown for 2 functions, and instead using it only for sorting packages. 

What would be the benefits of this way? In which cases of use would this
be more useful? I don't want to put you off, but we need arguments to
evaluate solutions.

Regards,

Sebastian