Since no one answered, let me ask a different question – would anyone oppose if I were to remove the .mw-ui-quiet class?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma.rex@gmail.comwrote:
Actually, what is the rationale for having a separate "quiet" style?
The one that seems to be given here seems to be the "inverse Fitts' law" [1], but I don't really see how just making a button more bland helps with this.
I'd be all for killing it and sticking to a simpler visual convention, just using regular (non-colored) buttons where we'd previously try to use the quiet ones.
(Resending because something ate the previous one.)
A "quieter than normal" button is necessary, I just don't like the current implementation. So, we can't get rid of it just yet.
I have a patch going up for review today with an additional type called sleeper buttons, which are somewhere between normal and quiet.
--Shahyar On Apr 3, 2014 10:49 AM, "Bartosz Dziewoński" matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
Since no one answered, let me ask a different question – would anyone oppose if I were to remove the .mw-ui-quiet class?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński <matma.rex@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, what is the rationale for having a separate "quiet" style?
The one that seems to be given here seems to be the "inverse Fitts' law" [1], but I don't really see how just making a button more bland helps with this.
I'd be all for killing it and sticking to a simpler visual convention, just using regular (non-colored) buttons where we'd previously try to use the quiet ones.
(Resending because something ate the previous one.)
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
As Shahyar said, we're still iterating but there will be a need for a "non-primary" button in many places throughout the UI
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Shahyar Ghobadpour < sghobadpour@wikimedia.org> wrote:
A "quieter than normal" button is necessary, I just don't like the current implementation. So, we can't get rid of it just yet.
I have a patch going up for review today with an additional type called sleeper buttons, which are somewhere between normal and quiet.
--Shahyar On Apr 3, 2014 10:49 AM, "Bartosz Dziewoński" matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
Since no one answered, let me ask a different question – would anyone oppose if I were to remove the .mw-ui-quiet class?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński <matma.rex@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, what is the rationale for having a separate "quiet" style?
The one that seems to be given here seems to be the "inverse Fitts' law" [1], but I don't really see how just making a button more bland helps with this.
I'd be all for killing it and sticking to a simpler visual convention, just using regular (non-colored) buttons where we'd previously try to use the quiet ones.
(Resending because something ate the previous one.)
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:06:11 +0200, Jared Zimmerman jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org wrote:
As Shahyar said, we're still iterating but there will be a need for a "non-primary" button in many places throughout the UI
And as I said, "[I suggest] sticking to a simpler visual convention, just using regular (non-colored) buttons where we'd previously try to use the quiet ones.".
The primary button will, as far as I see, *always* be a .mw-ui-progressive (eye-catching blue), .mw-ui-constructive (eye-catching green) or a .mw-ui-destructive (eye-catching red). The non-primary buttons will not have any of these classes, and thus will be dimmed grey. That's more than enough distinction for me.
Non-primary buttons will often still have context (eg. destructive for "Discard"). We'd like to allow these to remain, without overly drawing away from the primary action.
--Shahyar
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma.rex@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 01:06:11 +0200, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
As Shahyar said, we're still iterating but there will be a need for a
"non-primary" button in many places throughout the UI
And as I said, "[I suggest] sticking to a simpler visual convention, just using regular (non-colored) buttons where we'd previously try to use the quiet ones.".
The primary button will, as far as I see, *always* be a .mw-ui-progressive (eye-catching blue), .mw-ui-constructive (eye-catching green) or a .mw-ui-destructive (eye-catching red). The non-primary buttons will not have any of these classes, and thus will be dimmed grey. That's more than enough distinction for me.
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:30:07 +0200, Shahyar Ghobadpour sghobadpour@wikimedia.org wrote:
Non-primary buttons will often still have context (eg. destructive for "Discard"). We'd like to allow these to remain, without overly drawing away from the primary action.
I think this would be overengineered. The non-primary button should be just that – a dimmed, non-colored non-primary button. We shouldn't draw attention to it with colors.
It's less for drawing attention to it, but rather to make the action itself clear on hover and focus. In an inactive state, it has a toned down style to avoid unnecessarily attracting eyes to non content areas.
--Shahyar On Apr 5, 2014 1:49 PM, "Bartosz Dziewoński" matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:30:07 +0200, Shahyar Ghobadpour < sghobadpour@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Non-primary buttons will often still have context (eg. destructive for
"Discard"). We'd like to allow these to remain, without overly drawing away from the primary action.
I think this would be overengineered. The non-primary button should be just that – a dimmed, non-colored non-primary button. We shouldn't draw attention to it with colors.
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Bartosz, I think you and I are on the same page here. Shahyar agreed we'd proceed as-designed and do some iterative testing. Does that sound right Shahyar? If you have the time, to implement both styles we could do split testing with both via usertesting.com
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Shahyar Ghobadpour < sghobadpour@wikimedia.org> wrote:
It's less for drawing attention to it, but rather to make the action itself clear on hover and focus. In an inactive state, it has a toned down style to avoid unnecessarily attracting eyes to non content areas.
--Shahyar On Apr 5, 2014 1:49 PM, "Bartosz Dziewoński" matma.rex@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:30:07 +0200, Shahyar Ghobadpour < sghobadpour@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Non-primary buttons will often still have context (eg. destructive for
"Discard"). We'd like to allow these to remain, without overly drawing away from the primary action.
I think this would be overengineered. The non-primary button should be just that - a dimmed, non-colored non-primary button. We shouldn't draw attention to it with colors.
-- Matma Rex
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design