GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 724669
Standalone package install UX review
Last modified: 2014-03-03 09:40:17 UTC
Various issues from testing standalone package install today: * When software is opening a package, you get a more or less blank window with a spinner and a "Getting software details..." string. The string is a bit misleading, since it sounds like it is downloading information from the web. - Remove the "Getting software details..." string (and leave the spinner). - Show a back button to allow the action to be cancelled without closing the app. - Show a heading in the header bar? "Loading"? * Packages always use the symbolic package icon, which doesn't feel the best and is inconsistent with our symbolic icon use elsewhere in Software. - Add-ons - use system-run-symbolic - Apps - use emblem-system-symbolic - Repos - no icon? * Software doesn't indicate if the package is already installed. I would treat this in the same way as one of the other info boxes - hide the install button and have the box say "This software is already installed". * The information boxes look rather bright and jump out from the page. It would be nicer to use the colours in the mockups. * The line spacing in the information boxes looks off - it looks like the lines are trying to get away from each other. They should be more tightly grouped in the centre of the box. * The details section is missing a reference to the package file. It would be useful to include the file name here. * I'm unhappy with a couple of the headings in the info boxes (my bad). They sound like robot speak. - Replace "Software Source Identified" with "<software name> Contains a Software Source" - Replace "No Update Source Detected" with "<software name> Does Not Contain a Source Source"
Some further discussion happened on IRC and we agreed on sticking with fullcolor style for these icons. generic application/x-executable will be used for apps if we really cannot figure out how to look up the actual app icon. I will try coming up with something for repos and create a puzzle piece for addons and ship these with gnome-icon-theme.
gnome-icon-theme gained one of the icons, application-x-addon. Package repository still on the to do.
Created attachment 270162 [details] [review] PackageKit: make use of the summary in details, when available If PackageKit is recent enough, use the summary from GetDetails as the application summary for normal apps, and use it as the application name for local filenames (in place of the ugly package name). Another issue in the standalone package flow is when no appstream metadata is available at all, and we show the ugly package name as the application name. This patch solves it.
Created attachment 270202 [details] [review] details: Remove the "Getting software details…" label Only show a spinner while loading, and remove the text.
Created attachment 270203 [details] [review] details: Fade in the loading spinner Fade in the spinner during 1000 ms. Since most PK backends are now sufficiently fast to load the package details in a fraction of second, this avoids needlessly flickering the spinner.
Created attachment 270204 [details] [review] details: Use application/x-executable icon for local packages
Created attachment 270205 [details] [review] details: Add CSS for infobar theming ... as per latest mockups.
Created attachment 270206 [details] [review] details: Show the filename for local package installation
Created attachment 270207 [details] [review] details: Align package details as per latest mockups This makes the details section wider and aligns the two columns of information as per latest mockups. The width of the columns and the headings is now controlled by two size groups.
Created attachment 270208 [details] [review] details: Let the 'origin' span 3 columns This can be a really long text and doesn't look good when ellipsized: could be e.g. "Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release" or a particularly long local package name.
Created attachment 270209 [details] [review] details: Remove spacing between infobar labels
Created attachment 270210 [details] [review] details: Don't show missing history on a local package install
Created attachment 270211 [details] [review] details: Remove duplicate copy-pasted code
Created attachment 270212 [details] [review] details: Update software source message wording ... as suggested in the ticket.
(In reply to comment #0) > * I'm unhappy with a couple of the headings in the info boxes (my bad). They > sound like robot speak. > > - Replace "Software Source Identified" with "<software name> Contains a > Software Source" > > - Replace "No Update Source Detected" with "<software name> Does Not Contain a > Source Source" These strings might need some more tinkering. One thing that can mess it up is that we have no control what <software name> is: it could read 'firefox' or 'The Best Web Browser' or 'a browser' -- and depending on how the words are capitalized, it can mess up the text. In any case, I have some before and after screenshots: firefox-27.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm: https://people.gnome.org/~klember/gnome-software-local-install-firefox1.png https://people.gnome.org/~klember/gnome-software-local-install-firefox2.png rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm: https://people.gnome.org/~klember/gnome-software-local-install-rpmfusion1.png https://people.gnome.org/~klember/gnome-software-local-install-rpmfusion2.png
(In reply to comment #15) ... > > - Replace "Software Source Identified" with "<software name> Contains a > > Software Source" > > > > - Replace "No Update Source Detected" with "<software name> Does Not Contain a > > Source Source" > > These strings might need some more tinkering. One thing that can mess it up is > that we have no control what <software name> is: it could read 'firefox' or > 'The Best Web Browser' or 'a browser' -- and depending on how the words are > capitalized, it can mess up the text. Hmm, OK. Maybe we shouldn't use the name of the software itself then. "Software Source Included" and "No Software Source Included"? (I'm open to suggestions!) > In any case, I have some before and after screenshots: These look fantastic; I'm impressed. The only issue I can see is the use of icons. We want to use the full colour system-software-install for repositories and the new application-x-addon for add ons.
Oh, one other thing: don't show the updated or category fields if they are going to read 'never' or 'none'?
Review of attachment 270162 [details] [review]: You need a PK_CHECK_VERSION in packagekit-refine too, but after that it looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270202 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270203 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270204 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270205 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270206 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270207 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks, although untested.
Review of attachment 270208 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270209 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270210 [details] [review]: Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270211 [details] [review]: Ooops. Looks good, thanks.
Review of attachment 270212 [details] [review]: Can you get a string exception for this please -- then looks fine for me.
Attachment 270203 [details] pushed as 1872665 - details: Fade in the loading spinner Attachment 270204 [details] pushed as d7627ed - details: Use application/x-executable icon for local packages Attachment 270205 [details] pushed as c7a3cfd - details: Add CSS for infobar theming Attachment 270206 [details] pushed as 5b14c4c - details: Show the filename for local package installation Attachment 270207 [details] pushed as 00e9b2d - details: Align package details as per latest mockups Attachment 270208 [details] pushed as 7b8e395 - details: Let the 'origin' span 3 columns Attachment 270209 [details] pushed as 0103089 - details: Remove spacing between infobar labels Attachment 270210 [details] pushed as 628ac71 - details: Don't show missing history on a local package install Attachment 270211 [details] pushed as be7cc65 - details: Remove duplicate copy-pasted code
Thanks for the reviews, both Allan and Richard! (In reply to comment #16) > Hmm, OK. Maybe we shouldn't use the name of the software itself then. "Software > Source Included" and "No Software Source Included"? (I'm open to suggestions!) What should it say for the standalone repo package, when the whole package is just the repo? We've got 3 different cases, (1) app that has a repo file included, (2) app that doesn't have a repo file included, (3) package with just a repo file. Also, I am wondering if it might be better to use the existing terminology (software repository) instead of coming up with new (software source).
Created attachment 270304 [details] [review] repositories - again, mimetype because I can't think of anything more appropriate
Comment on attachment 270304 [details] [review] repositories Attachment 270304 [details] pushed as ef18672 - repositories
Comment on attachment 270162 [details] [review] PackageKit: make use of the summary in details, when available Attachment 270162 [details] pushed as bd655a7 - PackageKit: make use of the summary in details, when available
(In reply to comment #16) > "Software Source Included" and "No Software Source Included"? (I'm open to suggestions!) I've pushed this and another commit to make use of the new icons. Thanks! (In reply to comment #30) > Can you get a string exception for this please -- then looks fine for me. Done: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2014-March/msg00003.html We are only in string announcement period though so I only sent out the notifications and didn't ask for a freeze exception. The hard string freeze starts with the .91 release.