Re: A question about the New Java Project wizard

Chris,

can you tell us more about who were the people doing the usability test, 
what is their background, experience, etc. ?

I am still not clear on who we are designing all this for.

Thanks
Petr

cL wrote:

> this is another idea. the problem that we saw during the usability test 
> is that none of the participants understood why there were two panels 
> letting them add sources (this was to a project with existing sources).  
> the root of the problem is communicating what a source root is and what 
> a java root is and why they are different and to a large degree, why the 
> user should care about them.
> 
> by combining all roots into one panel i am assuming a couple of things:
> -user does not care about Source Roots or Java Roots
> -most users just want to add java source to a java project -doing so 
> drops the java stuff into the packages node which is where it belongs. 
> knowing about different kinds of roots doesn't help them.
> -a project from existing sources will probably be added via one or more 
> roots that will probably contain the java bit further down the tree 
> (like a nb cvs module).  the java bit of the existing source turns up 
> under packages and the non-java bit under sources. knowing about the 
> different root types doesn't actually help them. (the java root panel 
> should actually be changed to show the packages that were found so the 
> user can verify that is what they want.)
> 
> what i'm contesting here is that the different types of 'roots' are 
> implementation details that have zero meaning to the user. getting them 
> out of the way and just asking the user to add sources will let us ask 
> meaningful questions about whether java sources found should be added to 
> the project as such.
> 
> cL
> 
> Petr Jiricka wrote:
> 
>> Ann,
>>
>> I agree with your goal that the wizards, and especially the Basic 
>> wizard, should have as few steps as possible. That is a good goal and 
>> we should not be adding arbitrary panels that only clutter the wizard UI.
>>
>> I believe the above goal can be achieved even if we combine the Basic 
>> project and the Project from existing sources into one template.
>>
>> This is how such a combined wizard would look for the case of Java 
>> projects - for Web projects it would be analogous:
>>
>> 1. Specify Project name and Project File Location
>> Also, this panel will have a checkbox "Add existing sources to this 
>> project" (or similar). This is the only piece of UI that is added 
>> compared to the current Basic project wizard.
>>
>> Now there are two branches of the wizard. If the "Add existing 
>> sources" checkbox is unchecked, then the next panels are:
>>
>> 2a. Specify Java source locations
>>    -default: <prj_path>/src
>>    -user can add more Java source directories
>>    -Finish is enabled starting on this panel
>>
>> 3a. Specify resources
>>     ....
>>
>> ....
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> If on the other hand the "Add existing sources" checkbox is checked, 
>> then the wizard proceeds as follows:
>>
>> 2b. Specify (general) source directories
>>    -user can add arbitrary directories containing files in general
>>    -at least one directory must be specified
>>
>> 3b. Specify Java source locations
>>    -the wizard scans the directories added in panel 2b for Java source
>>     directories and puts them to the list by default
>>    -user can add more Java source directories or remove the ones
>>     added by the wizard
>>    -Finish is enabled starting on this panel
>>
>> 4b. Specify resources
>>     ....
>>
>> ....
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> So if the checkbox on panel 1 is unchecked (which is the default), the 
>> wizard is no more complicated than the current Basic wizard (except 
>> for the checkbox itself). The advantage is obviously that we cut down 
>> the number of wizards to one half.
>>
>> Comments ?
>> Petr
>>
>> Ann Sunhachawee wrote:
>>
>>> To get my 2c in before rework happens .. I disagree with 
>>> consolidating the basic/empty with the project from existing sources. 
>>> We would like our users to get through wizards as quickly as 
>>> possible, and I think this distinction in templates is helpful up front.
>>>
>>> This allows the user interested in starting a fresh project to start 
>>> up quickly, without having to pause and understand the concept of 
>>> "Java roots" or consider adding source or resource directories. If 
>>> the user creates a empty/basic project and picks a project home that 
>>> contains files, then perhaps we launch into Project from Existing 
>>> Sources at that point if they confirm they indeed are trying to 
>>> create a new project with those sources. The situation I'd like to 
>>> avoid is that a user ends up with a hybrid project - part of their 
>>> sources, with sample app files.
>>>
>>> -ann
>>>
>>> cL wrote:
>>>
>>>> sure, this sound fine. the spec will get a major update after the 
>>>> usability test results are compiled and analyzed and i will add this 
>>>> to the bits that need to be re-worked.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> cL
>>>>
>>>> Petr Jiricka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Team,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one question about creating new Java projects. According to 
>>>>> the UI spec, there will be two wizards: one for new empty/basic 
>>>>> project, and  one for project from existing sources. Well, is this 
>>>>> really necessary ? Couldn't it work if there was just one wizard, 
>>>>> which would decide which root to take, based on whether the home 
>>>>> directory entered by the user already contains sources or not ?
>>>>> The way it is now, the user needs to make the choice, when in fact 
>>>>> the machine could make the choice for her. Another advantage would 
>>>>> be that this would decrease the amount of clutter in the project 
>>>>> selector UI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Petr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>