The power-users of the Tools (e.g."Instructors" or ourselves) report experiences and Suggestions as well as usability problems.
The Suggestions & Experiences (and usability) wiki page (this page) is scanned through in regular phases for experience reports and fed to the Working Knot Work, if relevant, these experiences are then integrated into the help-system also.
Thus, the idea is to list here experiences and suggestions of use and usability problems you encounter when using Tools.
|Date||Who||What was done||Comment||Type of problem|
|26.10.2008||CR||After logout, there is no direct way back to the login page. The page displayed after logout provides a link back to the network-view but not to the login page. When following the link t the network view, the user might think s/he is logged in but this is not the case, instead s/he has to go back to the login-page.||Provide a direct link from the page displayed after logout to the login-page. The link back to the network-view should not be displayed.||login-logout|
|26.10.2008||CR||The status of the “creator” in the Shared Space User Management is unclear. In the table on roles the “creator” of a Shared Space is marked as “member” even though s/he has obviously admin rights for the space s/he created.||Mark the “creator” as “admin” instead of “member”.||user management|
|3.12.2008||ML||Name info of users in the user management list is not good now. There are columns "Name" and "Last name" - why not "First name" and "Last name". In addition, now some persons have created two user names (they probably do not know that they have created one already last spring and that it exists). However, the table does not show the actual usernames so that the Name and Last name fields might be exactly same but there is no possibility to know which row relates to which username||The user management table should have columns "Username", "First name" and "Last name"||user management|
|26.10.2008||CR||The meaning of the “red-highlighting” of nodes remains unclear, especially as multiple objects can be selected but only one can be manipulated at a time.||The role of multi-selection should be rethought. While it is a useful mechanism to handle a selection of objects (e.g. moving, copying) it needs to be clear to the user whether such is possible or not.||Network & content view|
|3.12.2008||ML||One very disturbing feature is that now in process and content view RED colour is used to indicate activation (“red-highlighting”). For decades it has been a standard principle in UI design that red colour is the colour for warnings. I have written about this before but doing it again because I think that it should be changed asap||Indicate the selection of some object through some other colour than red; for instance darker gray (or ask some UI design expert).||Process & content view|
|26.10.2008||CR||When clicking on or bending a link the arrow sometimes moves along the link (i.e. it does not stay at a fixed position of the link. In some cases the arrow even becomes hidden under the target element.||The arrows should be visible all the time and it should be clear to the user whether the position of the arrow as any meaning.||visual model editor|
|1.12.2008||EZ||Adding a context-based chat to a content item in the content view.||I think the following is more a bug than a usability problem, but I also want to add it here (I have already used the feedback form): When creating a context-based chat (e.g. right-click on a content item and select "chat"), the session log saves "adding a task" instead of "adding a chat". When cancelling this action, the session log says "canceled adding a task".||Session log in content view|
|16.12.2008||ML||Reviewing session log info about changes done in a ssp||The session log information could be more detailed. It would be useful if there always was also information about what item (title) was the object of action or, e.g between what items was the link that was the object of action. If there is a lot of material in a ssp, general info about changing a link is not very informative or revealing.||Session log in content view|
|19.1.2009||KK||Creation of the task||When you create a task in the procecc view, It does not turn out in the content view until you have gone to the network view returned back to the content view||SSP process view|
|19.1.2009||KK||Milestones?||The spots representing the tasks in the process view do note comprehensible enough signal their timeframe because the only dates referenced are displayed at the two ends of the ruler below||Process view |
|19.1.2009||KK||Modifying task||It is eventually impossible to modify created task at least in the content view. Since an opportunity to browse various deadlines is crucial in projects, it would be nice to see starting and ending dates as meta-data while you are pointing tassk||Process view|
|19.1.2009||KK||Creating a subtask||When you create a subtask in the process view it tends to appear pretty far from the main task in the content view||Process view |
|19.1.2009||KK||Commenting editor||Since ä and ö- letters are replaced with other signs in the editor, comments tend to be uncomprehensible when created in languages where these letters are used||Commenting|
|22.1.2009||KK||Adding members to Ssp:s||SSp user management system does not work and at least I'm not able to add new members to the SSp:s I have created||SSp user management|
Thanks Kari for good suggestionss! Some of those are comming with the improvements see: http://kplab.evtek.fi:8080/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=ImprovementsForM24ReleaseProcessView