10 replies to this topic

[dplneural]

Hi,

I have attached an image highlighting a potential UI bug concerning the positioning of the processing controls and processing buttons.

I hope this helps,

dplneural

Attached Files

•  Piriform_01.jpg   61K   25 downloads

[unclebic]

dplneural, on Sep 28 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

Hi,

I have attached an image highlighting a potential UI bug concerning the positioning of the processing controls and processing buttons.

I hope this helps,

dplneural

I believe this is the way it is supposed to look. It has been this way from the beginning of version 2.0.

[dplneural]

unclebic, on Sep 29 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

I believe this is the way it is supposed to look. It has been this way from the beginning of version 2.0.

thanks Vic, you are indeed correct.

But personally I would still not cut off the right hand side of a button if I could avoid it and it is a trivial thing to rectify. Having said that it is what goes on under the bonnet that counts,

cheers,

Daniel

[DennisD]

I see what you mean Daniel, but I've always looked at that particular part of CCleaners interface as being a line of tabs down the side as opposed to buttons.

All depends on your viewpoint of course.

[ident]

dplneural, on Sep 29 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

thanks Vic, you are indeed correct.

But personally I would still not cut off the right hand side of a button

cheers,

Daniel

why not? I'm very much the same as dennis and have always viewed them as tabs. Which i'd guess is what piriform intended to do all along. I doubt they are 'button's any way, Most probably some customly made ActiveX controls, that i must add look pretty sexy.

CCleaner has a fantastic UI

[Nergal]

Meh if it hadn't been posted I'd never've noticed. I have to say as this has no impact on the function of the program, i can't see it as too high a priority. . . but I'm a form<function kinda guy.

[dplneural]

ident, on Sep 30 2009, 04:33 AM, said:

why not? I'm very much the same as dennis and have always viewed them as tabs. Which i'd guess is what piriform intended to do all along. I doubt they are 'button's any way, Most probably some customly made ActiveX controls, that i must add look pretty sexy.

CCleaner has a fantastic UI

seemed to have started a can of worms here which was not the point. If you run Visual Studio Spy++ you will find they are buttons which is why I raised it as a potential bug...it was a layout thing to me. You don't need to use buttons to simulate tabs.

[ident]

No can of worms, you made a discussion. which is good. One that every ones viewpoint is valid since it concerns a UI.

Ok they are buttons 'as you say' (not checked) was only guessing. So they made buttons look like tabs? It was the choice of them to do so. I'm not about to second guess coders of ccleaner who are miles a head with coding then i am.

Regardles of why they choose to. I like it. And i'd be interested in hearing your point from a coders perspective to why you would not have chosen the UI as it is now.

This is not an argumentative post to whats right. I am just generally interested in your POV.

It could always lead to me thinking to different ways

sam

[marmite]

dplneural, on Sep 29 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

seemed to have started a can of worms here which was not the point.

One thing you won't find on here is lack of an opinion

dplneural, on Sep 29 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

If you run Visual Studio Spy++ you will find they are buttons which is why I raised it as a potential bug...it was a layout thing to me. You don't need to use buttons to simulate tabs.

Personally, I don't think it matters whether these controls are buttons or not. Their behaviour has clearly (and I think quite effectively) been manipulated to be similar to tabs. That they are buttons is neither here nor there to me. If they were traditionally styled buttons, then I could see your point; but I don't see any usability or style problems around what's been done here.

[dplneural]

ident, on Sep 30 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

No can of worms, you made a discussion. which is good. One that every ones viewpoint is valid since it concerns a UI.

Ok they are buttons 'as you say' (not checked) was only guessing. So they made buttons look like tabs? It was the choice of them to do so. I'm not about to second guess coders of ccleaner who are miles a head with coding then i am.

Regardles of why they choose to. I like it. And i'd be interested in hearing your point from a coders perspective to why you would not have chosen the UI as it is now.

This is not an argumentative post to whats right. I am just generally interested in your POV.

It could always lead to me thinking to different ways

sam

ahhh see now I did not say I would not have chosen the UI, I clearly used the term potential UI bug in my original post and this is based on the layout of the controls. Tabs are standard items in MFC which can be owner drawn to be displayed any way you wish, hence why I considered it a potential layout issue because the objects in question are buttons. True tabs don't have a seam at the point of attachment and often the remaining tabs have an outline distinguishing them. Whereas in this case the processing controls appear to be overlayed, which is fine if that is the intention.

I am not criticising the design or trying to second guess the intended design but merely providing feedback to the programmers.

[unclebic]

dplneural, on Sep 29 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

ahhh see now I did not say I would not have chosen the UI, I clearly used the term potential UI bug in my original post and this is based on the layout of the controls. Tabs are standard items in MFC which can be owner drawn to be displayed any way you wish, hence why I considered it a potential layout issue because the objects in question are buttons. True tabs don't have a seam at the point of attachment and often the remaining tabs have an outline distinguishing them. Whereas in this case the processing controls appear to be overlayed, which is fine if that is the intention.

I am not criticising the design or trying to second guess the intended design but merely providing feedback to the programmers.

dplneural, first welcome to the formus (should have said that before)! Don't sweat the small stuff here. This is a very friendly forum and what you are experiencing here is a pretty passionate group. I am sure the folks who do the design and code will take your suggestions to heart. For all I know the far in the future version 3.0 may just have links with no buttons, tabs, or any sort of 3D looking interface.

It is like I always say, "you can stick ten geeks in a room, and get ten different opinions about the same thing." Of course the other nine, beside mine will be wrong.

Again, welcome to the forums.