Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Separating features into Basic and Advanced

(1/3) > >>

TaoPhoenix:
Elsewhere:
maybe it would be worth considering separating FARR's options into basic vs. advanced?
-phitsc (November 29, 2012, 09:02 AM)
--- End quote ---

In many cases I approve of this kind of separation. Perhaps the challenge is which features are so fundamental they need to be in the Basic set, but roughly I think it helps discoverability.  I think this is one of the things Apple picked up on, though possibly to the frowns of expert users.

Echoing a remark I made elsewhere, I do a lot of simple-use-cases with programs that are capable of much more. Chops to Mouser for adding my one use into SC captor so that I didn't feel torn between DC loyalty and how I actually work. In other programs especially the graphics ones, I often do no more than cutting and pasting sections to blot out annoying portions, change the stretch dimensions, then resave the modded version. So I don't need all the wild fancy tricks that the pros use, and I'm happy for them to live behind some menu like "advanced".

What do y'all think? Do you approve of the hierarchical layering of features, or should they all be equally accessible?

Renegade:
Funny that you should bring this up. I was thinking of starting the same thread. (Or very close anyways.)

90% of the time, I only care about BASIC stuff, but there are those times when I want/need/require ADVANCED control.

But, how do you properly handle transitioning between the two?

Do you treat them independently and have only 1 in effect at a time?

e.g.

Basic quality is set to "high", which in Advanced is 80.
Advanced quality changes to 70, which would be "medium" in Basic, but the Basic setting is left at "high".


Do you keep them in sync, but modify the one that is out of scope according to the settings you are currently working with?

e.g.

Basic quality is set to "high", which in Advanced is 80.
Advanced quality changes to 70, which would be "medium" in Basic, so the Basic setting is changed to "medium".

Two very different approaches. Preserve or adapt?

I'd like to know what people would normally expect.

They're fundamentally different, but both valid assumptions.

mouser:
I tried this once, with my Find and Run Robot application.

In that case I had the options dialog toggle between an Advanced mode, which shows all options, and a Simple mode, which hid most.

First let me say, I am a complete believer in the concept that too many options can be overwhelming, scary, and make it harder to find the options to do what you want.

Having said that, most people who have seen my software know that I simply cannot help myself when it comes to adding options, and they tend to proliferate in my software.  I think that has to do partly with the audience.  I tend to respond most to people who are tinkerers and like to customize things, and the DC forums tend to attract such people.  And I don't spend too much time thinking about "How can we make this easier for new casual users."

Now back to the story of two modes in FARR:  Eventually I dropped the idea of having the Advanced and Simple modes, simply because it did not seem like something that felt unsustainable for me -- hiding options in the dialog just never looked right.

However, that was before I moved to my more standard TABBED options dialog which I have taken to using on most of my applications these days.  I think the TABBED options offers a fairly natural way to move Advanced options to a separate section of tabs, and keep the more basic stuff in other tabs.

It's still not a perfect separation, but I think it can serve an important role in helping people see which options are more likely to be useful to them.  A sample from the new Screenshot Captor options dialog:



This Advanced group is something I will probably add to my other programs as well.  The only disadvantage is that it means some options that would otherwise logically be grouped together may get separated (some in basic options and some in advanced), but I think that's a price worth paying.

TaoPhoenix:
(Not sure what Renny is referring to)
I do agree that in some cases too much choice is overwhelming. So start with the Basic features, then say a few weeks/months later he user asks "can this do X" a 2 paragraph reply can show him how. But that wasn't his use case on day 1 when he just wanted to snap a screen shot.

mouser:
One system that I think is a great tradeoff for balancing the needs of tweakers, developers, and casual users, is the system where some really advanced options are hidden away in an area that doesn't even have a nice option user interface.  Think of the firefox about config area, etc.

This is a good system because these advanced tweak options are hidden from normal user, available to tweakers, and don't require careful user interface design by the coder and make it very easy to expose new settings.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page