Forums / Suggestions / The Administration Interface Project

The Administration Interface Project

Author Message

Balazs Halasy

Wednesday 17 March 2004 1:03:50 am

This will be the main thread where people can/should discuss the stuff that is outlined in this article:

http://ez.no/community/news/the_administration_interface_project

Paul Forsyth

Wednesday 17 March 2004 2:42:36 am

Looks great.

If you are moving to a wholly css layout which version of xhtml are you targetting? Will it be transient or strict? Will the templates for the online editor also be updated?

the other suggestions you have for different ways to lay out things probably need an image, just to be complete.

should 'browse' be a logical state? i think of browse as a function that fetches something my current object/class needs, which is just a file selector.

paul

Paul Forsyth

Wednesday 17 March 2004 4:58:40 am

Will the main menu allow easy configuration of new sections/placeholders such that it will be easy to add new areas? I did see something in the doc about allowing parts to be hidden based on user privileges, but not on this point. i may have missed it.

paul

Alex Jones

Wednesday 17 March 2004 6:20:12 am

Thanks for posting the message, it is greatly appreciated!

I would really like to see more information on the changes involving CSS. Specifically, I think there is a lot of room to tighten up the current style sheets. I have also seen many attempts at providing themed or skinned sites and feel it would be good to see your planned approach as there are a lot of pitfalls when moving in this direction. Naming conventions for Classes and IDs as well as proper use of the cascade can have a long term impact on the (re)usability of these templates. It would be great to see the stylesheets and their associated template code for critiquing.

Please do not get me wrong, I think it is the right way to go (I am a big CSS advocate), I just want to ensure it is as smooth as possible once complete.

Cocerning XHTML: I would recommend a two phase time line, start by using Transitional, and after several release cycles move to Strict. While I am trying to stick to Strict in my projects (as is Paul), I think it would introduce a lot of confusion among developers who are not familiar with XHTML. That confusion could cause a lot of small problems to pop up in their sites, causing them to lose a lot of time. In addition, moving to Strict will cause several major changes to be made to templates. For example, <i>border</i> needs to be removed from the image tag.

Like my post below, it is important to list out the supported browser/OS combinations as there are a ton of issues that will come up when working with CSS.

Alex

Alex
[ bald_technologist on the IRC channel (irc.freenode.net): #eZpublish ]

<i>When in doubt, clear the cache.</i>

Alex Jones

Wednesday 17 March 2004 6:30:37 am

It would be good to see an actual list of target browser/OS combinations. My recommendations (in no particular order) would be:

<b>Windows</b>
Firefox .9+ (If Mozilla is supported, this should work automatically)
IE 5.5
IE 6
Netscape 7
Mozilla 1+
Opera 6+

<b>Macintosh OS X</b>
Firefox .9+ (If Mozilla is supported, this should work automatically)
IE 5.0
Netscape 7
Mozilla 1+
Opera 6+

<b>Macintosh OS 9</b>
IE 5
...?

<b>*NIX/BSD</b>
Firefox .9+ (If Mozilla is supported, this should work automatically)
Netscape 7
Mozilla 1+
Opera 6+

For the most part, there shouldn't be too many inconsistencies between the bunch. Though you may want to think about dropping IE 5 on Windows considering its odd JS support.

Alex

Alex
[ bald_technologist on the IRC channel (irc.freenode.net): #eZpublish ]

<i>When in doubt, clear the cache.</i>

Alex Jones

Wednesday 17 March 2004 6:46:32 am

<b>Main Menu</b>
Custom: I really think it would be nice to allow the user to denote one or two Custom tabs. A Custom tab would be like a bookmark that is always visible at the top of the screen. Give the user a little more control over the interface to make it easier for them to go to their most commonly visited areas within one of the other sections.

<b>Main Menu Labels</b>
<i>"Content structure" instead of "Content"</i> - I prefer "Content" as this section is more than just the strcture. I don't see a need to make the name longer.
<i>"Library" or "Media library" instead of "Media"</i> - I prefer "Media Library" as the addition of "Library" should make it more clear to new users. This section has been confusing for a lot of people.
<i>"User accounts" instead of "Users"</i> - I like "User Accounts" or perhaps "User Management"/"User Manager"
<i>"My account" instead of "Personal"</i> - I like "My Account"

Alex

Alex
[ bald_technologist on the IRC channel (irc.freenode.net): #eZpublish ]

<i>When in doubt, clear the cache.</i>

Alexandre Cunha

Wednesday 17 March 2004 8:48:21 am

A selector to choose what language content do admin, i thing is a good idea for multilingual sites.

axel

http://AlexandreCunha.com

Albert Berenguer

Wednesday 17 March 2004 9:39:20 am

hi,
theese are two suggestions for class editing area in the admin interface.
In my opinion it would be useful to choose how many options will have a ezEnum or a ezSelection datatype when creating it. With this functionality you won't need to click "new option" and reload the edition every time you enter a new option, you'd be able to add several option fields at the same time.
In the same area, it would be useful to be able to choose the position of an attribute directly with a number, so you don't need to use "up" and "down" lots of times when editing a large class.

of course, theese are just some ideas, please discuss them if you don't like, bye!
albert

Alexandre Cunha

Wednesday 17 March 2004 10:07:02 am

I love the content tree struture approach.

Something with more info about the folder content when the folder/item IF not expanded, like this:
...- root node
.....+ news (3 itens)
.....+ about us (1 iten)
.....+ welcome page (2 itens)
.....- our produts (2 itens)
........+ products cat 1 (empty)
........- products cat 2 (2 itens)
...........- product 2-1
...........- produts 2-2
.....- contant us

Each content item, haves 3 buttons/actions avaiable:
- expand / un-expand (click over '+' or '-' signs
- edit content (click over the item)
- context sensitive options (edit, delete item, create a children node, rename, copy, ...) - click over a button, open the popup, or mouse right botton over item

Aditionally, I suggest:
- filters - apply filters to the content tree. Eg: higligting/only show content of a specific class
- search function - the search, updates the tree higligting the itens with searched content
- lingual filter / language selector
- section filter (not sure about this ...)
- update tree button - to make a http request to update the tree based on the search and filter options

axel

http://AlexandreCunha.com

Alexandre Cunha

Wednesday 17 March 2004 10:47:10 am

<quote>
This tool will consist of a button and a read-only input field. When the button is pushed, the interface will enter browse mode. The user will be able to browse the tree in order to select a single node. Final actions: "OK" or "Cancel". Back in edit mode,
</quote>

I dont like this "enter browse mode" when editing content. Confusing for most/new users.

Please consider this scenario:
- when the button is pushed:
possible soluction 1 - opens a popup with the structure tree. the user can choose <strong>one or several nodes</strong>. clicking ok, the popup closes and generates the links.
possible soluction 2 - instead of popup, the right panel shows the struture tree (in a DIV/iframe/whatever).

axel

http://AlexandreCunha.com

Balazs Halasy

Thursday 18 March 2004 12:14:49 am

Thanks for the suggestions so far. Keep them coming! :-) We'll try to sum up & address stuff every other week or so until the development of 3.5 starts. Although we read everything that is posted here, we do not have time to answer each and every suggestion/question right away. Don't let this (lack of immediate response) stop you from keeping the suggestions/discussions alive.

Balazs

liu spider

Thursday 18 March 2004 4:09:40 am

I think konqueror in KDE should also be officially supported under *nix/BSD

http://liucougar.scim-im.org
SCIM Input Method Platform
http://scim.sf.net
SJSD Online Editor
http://sf.net/projects/sjsd

Paul Forsyth

Thursday 18 March 2004 4:17:16 am

I know konq is a favourite among some ez developers ;)

Konqueror support would give automatic support for Safari on Mac OS X, as they share the same KHTML rendering engine. However, i would prefer support to be for Konqueror 3.2 and above, as Apple added lots of fixes to KHTML recently. Previous versions of Konqueor, in my experience, have problems with CSS.

paul

Tore Skobba

Friday 19 March 2004 2:58:51 am

Hi

I have a need for moving multiple users/content at once, I also sometimes need to relate several objects. For instance, check 5 users, then move them all to a new destination. I think this would be very nice for sites having various privileges to various usersgroups.

In addition I sometimes have problems if I want to change the content class on my site. For instance I have an News_folder having 60 news articles as children. Then I want to reorganize my News into something like this:

Folder
Board news (news folder)
News for all (news folder)

New I need to move ALL children away from the news_folder then delete it, create an object of a folder class and then add all the children to new respective sub news folders. Here a mulitple move would be very nice.

Cheers
Tore

Rami Grossman

Sunday 21 March 2004 1:20:54 am

It would be very usefull to add a quick access to a node or an object. put an edit box to enter the node or object id number.

Mark Marsiglio

Sunday 21 March 2004 8:47:51 pm

My client helped me select eZ for our project simply because it provided the most Section 508 compliant CMS tool (that met all of the other requirements). For those not familiary with US laws, this has to do with accesibility of websites for assistive technologies. Many otherwise good CMSs use interface tricks, scripts, DHTML and other non-accesible technologies which make it less attractive to my government client.

The move towards more CSS/XHTML is great, but I think the public sector market would really open up for eZ if accessibility of the admin interface could be considered during this process. We could not find any other products that provided this when we looked just a few months ago.

The main thing would be to not use script for any essential functions. Enhancing the interface with these features can be useful for the majority of users, but if any functions depend on them entirely, it breaks the tool for those who use assistive devices.

Another interface note - make sure that whenever possible, it allows users to hit the back button and actually reach their previous page.

Its great to see such a well thought-out process underway!

http://www.thinkcreative.com
Turning Ideas Into Strategic Solutions

Felix Laate

Wednesday 24 March 2004 1:27:41 am

First of all: great work so far!

I would like to propose a possibility to show the interface in e.g. "easy", "common" and "advanced" modes (the "easy" being suitable for novices and publishers needing only the most basic functions, and so on. The "advanced" would obviously be the full package).

For each user (and/or role) you would be able to asign a "viewmode". Thus giving the administrator the "advanced mode" and the secretary responsble for adding to lines of content each week the "easy mode".

The reason for this proposal, is my experience with implementing ez Publish so far. The admin interface of today (which I personally like) is seen as too difficult for a number of people. It has actually been a busines-breake in some cases. But in other cases it has been the selling point, that ez Publish is so customable etc.

I ended up making a "light" version of the existing interface, making it a little nicer, adding a treemenu for navigating, hiding the "setup" and "user" branches, adding the excelent multiplefileupload-extension, adding graphical items to menues for visualization and so on..

Its easier to sell, teach and use.

Publlic Relations Manager
Greater Stavanger
www.greaterstavanger.com

Cesar Verdes

Wednesday 31 March 2004 12:57:51 pm

<i>First of all I'll thank you for improve your excelent product for all your users comfort! and thanks for let us (your users and partners) to tell you our suggestions about the new Administration Interface. I have a suggestion and a question:</i>

<b>1) Suggestion about Javascript:</b>

I'm totally agree about 'not misuse Javascript to make a "fancy/flashy" GUI'.

As ez Publish is not only a CMS but en excellent framework, I ask you to inlcude an coherent Javascript API in order tu implement all the dynamic functions of the new Administration Interface.

I think that this API will simplify you the development and it will serve us as a javascript framework for custom development over the ez publish CMF.

There is a lot of Javascript API. The most stable, fast and complete one I saw, and the API I recomend is Dynapi. It's all object oriented and open source. You can found it at http://dynapi.sourceforge.net/dynapi/

I think that it's impossible to use this kind of heavy javascripts API for the end-user site, but I think it can be very useful for the administration interface because it can be cached at the client browser.

<b>2) Questions about possibilities of extend the Administration Interface:</b>

I think that right now, with the version 3.3, it's quite dificult to modify the Administrator Interface because if I change or overwrite the default admin templates I can have problems to upgrade it to futures versions.

Can it be possible to include some kind of pre-fixed hooks at the code where we can include new-version-safe new functionalities?

What do you mean at the news when say: "Upgrade/update/extend the GUI (by making use of classes, etc.)"?

Thanks, Cesar.

Paul Wilson

Wednesday 31 March 2004 3:46:03 pm

<b>Suggestion 1: Moving and Re-Ordering Objects</b>
While EZ Publish is just fantastic at most things, I think the handling of objects and attributes via the Admin interface needs attention.

In particular, I think it takes too long to move objects or attributes individually and it seems feasible to find a better way.

I would like to see the "Move" and "Reorder" functionality overhauled so that it is possible to:
- tag multiple objects in a folder and move them to another folder.
- tag and move/re-order attributes within an object class definition.

I have made comments about this issue and possible strategies for resolution in the bug/suggestion titled: "Re-ordering Class attributes when creating or editing a Class (Admin Interface)"

<b>Suggestion 2: Importing/Exporting Data</b>
This fits into the "I wish for..." category. I would really like a way to create/edit multiple objects and/or import/export data. When creating a large site using EZ, it takes a LOT of time to create each new object individually or perhaps worse still, edit or update them. Perhaps a table data view something like (oh no surely this word is banned) Microsoft Access' table data view. Maybe a group select/edit function brings up multiple objects? Alternatively, some integrated method for data import/export would be wonderful.

Huib Kleinhout

Thursday 15 April 2004 8:14:18 am

Hi,
All comments so far didn't really focus on the usability part of the new interface. I will try to add my 2 cents by stepping through the document with the focus on usability.
Starting with the eight goals (Create a consistent ... etc) formulated, I'd rather restructure these usability goals in general and more specific ones:
<b>1) Consistent </b>
interface/framework
<b>2) Easier (smoother)</b>
navigation
editing/publishing
use of images and links
<b>3) Intuitive (smooth out learning curve)</b>
<b>4) Reduce information load</b>
create well arranged layout

Additionally, guidelines like these http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html might be helpful for evaluation of the new interface/framework.

<b>Logo/banner</b>
The search mechanism contains two radio buttons, so users are able to instantly narrow down their search. Although this function can be very useful, it directly conflicts with the 3th and 4th goal, smooth out learning curve and reduce information load: at least the first time a user wants to search for something, he needs read the text next to radio buttons, think about what the text means and decide whether he should click on one of radio buttons. Certainly, most of the users can perform these steps in just a second, but adding such functionality will increase the complexity of the interface while it benefits only a small group of users. And many of these useful functions will require many seconds (and effort) of the user.
As an alternative for the radio buttons I would suggest to group the search results or show links to filters on the result page, for example. (I'm sorry for the crappy layout, try the search engines on microsoft.com and apple.com to roughly see what I mean)
<b>Grouping search results:</b>
Results in another_sub_node:
1. blabla
2. blabla
3. blabla...
[link]more results in another_sub_node
Results in all content
1. blabla
2. blabla
3. blabla....
[link]more results in all content

<b>Search results with filters:</b>
Seach results
1. blabla
2. blabla
3. blabla....
[link]results in another_sub_node

Basically, the 'filter mechanism' is moved to the result page. But by using one of these methods, the radio buttons are not needed, which will cleaning up the main interface. Secondly, if the search results are good, the user doesn't need look at the 'filter links', because he already satisfied his goal (finding a certain item)

<b>Main menu</b>
The old labels are somewhat confusing. Especially 'media' and 'content', because media can be content and content can be media. The suggested labels are much better, but also longer. To keep it the labels as short as possible it would suggest to use 'content structure', 'library', 'users' (next label suggests it's about user accounts), 'my account' (very common used terminology)

<b>Location/path block and Left bar</b>
A major problems of browser interfaces is the risk of 'getting lost' in the huge amount of information. At some point a user of the interface will ask himself 'Where am I? How can I get to... What am I doing here etc.'. The excellent pretty names in ezp-urls provide some clue about the current location, but using the browser url for navigation isn't very comfortable. The url can't be easily edited by hand for example. In other words: the location block is a good idea.

<b>Main area</b>
no comments

<b>left/right bar</b>
Creating both a left bar and a right bar, will take a lot of horizontal space on the screen. Leaving only a small portion left for the real content (in the main area). Users with a small browser window or a low screen resolution won't have much 'main area' left. In practice, lots of people (with a non-it profession) are using a small browser window. (800x600 or so)
Secondly, adding two bars conflict conflicts with goal nr 4: reducing information load. Is all this information really needed? Every single feature that is added to the bars, will clutter the interface and distract from the main tasks. (posting a news item, adding a user etc.)
I would suggest to use just one bar (on the left) which can be customised. The default (the not customised) version of this bar should only show a few information items. There are several ways to create a bar which can be customized, for example with expandable panels (like in XP explorer), tabs (gnome nautilus) and/or via a menu settings. This mostly depend on how much javascript magic is used.

<b>contents of (left/right) bar</b>
Generally, it would be the best to focus on limiting the amount of information shown in the bar. Most users probably aren't interested in seeing the creation date, modification date, review date ... every single time they access an object.
For sake of consistency with other websites (goal 1) the logout button should preferably be located somewhere in the upper-right corner.

<b>Advanced and simple mode</b>
There have been conducted several experiments with different interface modes/user levels. Most of the interfaces failed. Some of the problems are:
*The interface is not consistent (goal 1)
*How do you know what kind of user you are? (not intuitive, goal 3)
*It's often used as an excuse to litter the most advanced interface (goal 4)
In other words: please don't implement this. As an alternative, 'profiles' could be used, possibly in combination with roles. Like computer administrators can strip windows/gnome/kde for use in internetcafe's. Because the admin knows exactly what a certain group of users, news editors for example, are allowed to do he can strip down the interface to not show and disallow certain features.

<b>footer</b>
no comments

<b>content class icons</b>
Icons enables people to recognize certain elements in the interface. (consistent, easy, intuitive). I suggest to use a generic icon for missing icons. A question mark might be interpreted as if something is wrong with the object.
Naturally, the icon-class associations are stored in a ini file. But since administrators might not want to spend days on investigating ini-files, I suggest to create a UI for this.

<b>Logical states/modes</b>
The different logical states seem to be fair. However, for sake of consistency the appearance of the interface should indicate 1)what the users is doing (what state) 2) what he can do next (confirm selection/cancel action). Be sure the user can't accidentally mix up different states.

<b>Navigation mode</b>
The functionality of a folder tree has some overlap with the location bar. I suggest not to show it at as default (goal 4). A tree can be very useful, but it requires lots of screen space to avoid horizontal scrolling. In usability-land, horizontal scrolling is generally considered to be A Bad Thing (c)
[The usability of the contents of the main area depends a lot on the actual implementation and design. Therefore, I will not comment on it now.]

<b>Javascript in the UI</b>
I'm convinced that if technology can solve a usability problem, it should be used. Creating cross-browser compatible javascript and non-javascript alternatives can be very difficult, but the result might prove to be very easy to use for end users. And that happens to be one of the interface project goals.

<b>Edit</b>
Generate link feature: This feature requires end-users to understand XML! I strongly suggest not to implement a link feature this way. It not easy (goal 2) for end users to understand a low-level computer language. If javascript is going to be used, it should be used here, to hide the XML.
I'm not judging ez systems business model, but from usability point of view something like the online editor shouldn't be optional.
The procedure described for adding/relating objects to a current object is a nice example of how to create an easy to use interface: the software makes it easy for you by automating predictable steps. (goal 2)

<b>Some general remarks on features in the main area:</b>
- Be sure extra features can be found (goal 3). Intuitive also means predictable. If the interface doesn't make it clear how the pop-up menu can be activated, it should also be possible to access the menu items in some other way.
- Use human language. Most people don't see pages, images, sounds as being objects. If UML language can be avoided, it should be. If an object happens to be a page, just call it 'a page'. Imagine what a user thinks when he/she sees this: http://ez.no/i_dont_exist Kernel error? Module not found? Siteaccess name?

Please don't get scared by this lengthy, critical, reply. :-) I think the administration interface proposal written by ez systems is a big improvement over to current one. But still, there a lot of room for improvement left. Hopefully my comments will help ezp filling this gap.
Feel free to ask if I need to clarify some things.