Hiding unneeded fields

RaZorbacK · 2006-05-12 18:36

Hello Denis and all,
as usual, I think my explanations will be a big mess but let me try anyway.
Since Denis may know, I'm using the program only with the keyboard and moving within the interface mainly with the tab key. so, here is my problem, let me illustrate this with the serialize rule.
The problem is that, even if an option is not activated, its coressponding edit field is accessible with the tab key. for example, even if the "pad to lenth" box is not ticked, the edit field inviting the user to type a number is visible and so, my screen reader is messed while tabbing around through unecessary fields. Same things for the edit box allowing to indicate the position where to place the new numbers. the radio button is not checked but the edit box is visible.
So, here is my question: Is it possible to make the program showing edit boxes only when the corresponding option is checked, thus decreasing the numbers of unneeded fields ? lol, i've spent some time tabbing around the serialize dialog to understand ho it works lol. It may be straightforward for an user seeing the screen though.

don't worry, I'm not complaining and this feature may be usefull for sighted people but if it's possible, I would apreciate. I'm even not not sure my explanations have sense hehe
Thank you in advance

den4b · 2006-05-12 21:28

Hi Sof, good to hear from you again

The Tab thing is a bit of a mess at the moment. I fixed it before, so all components followed the correct Tab Order. But after my great modifications to the user interface (especially the Dynamic Rules System), the Tab Order got broken again... I can fix it again, so Tabs will follow the components layout logically, but I'm afraid I don't like the idea of some components been hidden if they are not used.

Hope the correct Tab Order will help you

RaZorbacK · 2006-05-12 22:23

Hi denis,
no worries, just do what you can. I just have to get used to the interface, that's all. yes, for example, the fact that the edit box coressponding to the "pad to lenght" option is placed before the option according to the tab order is a bit confusing! lol
Thank you for your effort!

den4b · 2006-05-13 09:09

Sof wrote:

for example, the fact that the edit box corresponding to the "pad to length" option is placed before the option according to the tab order is a bit confusing! lol

http://www.den4b.com/Projects/ReNamer/ReNamerBeta.zip
Try it, I've fixed the Tab Order (in Rules configuration). If you notice the same problem in any other window, tell us about it

RaZorbacK · 2006-05-17 13:21

Denis Kozlov wrote:

Sof wrote:
for example, the fact that the edit box corresponding to the "pad to length" option is placed before the option according to the tab order is a bit confusing! lol
http://www.den4b.com/Projects/ReNamer/ReNamerBeta.zip
Try it, I've fixed the Tab Order (in Rules configuration). If you notice the same problem in any other window, tell us about it

thanks it seems to be OK. but, in serialize, I can't make the difference between the length option and the pad to length.
can you hep please?

den4b · 2006-05-17 13:43

Sof wrote:

in serialize, I can't make the difference between the length option and the pad to length. can you hep please?

You probably haven't noticed the 2 categories in the Serialize rule: Incremental and Random. And some of the options are category-specific. ONLY for Incremental: "Index Starts", "Step", "reset if folder changes". ONLY for Random: "Length", "unique if possible". And the rest of the option ("Prefix", "Suffix", "Position", "Padding" ) are for both of them. Padding simply adds "0" (zeros) in front of the number, to reach some defined length. While "Length" (which ONLY works with Random Serialization) will generate a random number of the specified Length.

Is it any clearer now?

RaZorbacK · 2006-05-21 21:08

Denis Kozlov wrote:

Is it any clearer now?

yes, thank you for the explanation. I think there are some hints baloons in each type of rules but I can't always notice them.
thanks to always take the time to help

krtek · 2008-02-29 06:41

Hi Denis!
I'm still testing newest ReNamer and I have a lot of fun from it.
This thread inspired me to check the tab order in rules that I rarely use (like Insert:-). And I have to say that the tab order is quite confusing. I'll try to explain why on the Insert rule example, but the same concerns Delete and Serialize rules.

I don't know "professional" names for the components so let me name it by myself as:
tick box - the square box like in "skip extention"
dot box - the round box like in "prefix"
input field - anything where you can input some text

What I dislike most in the behaviour of tab order is that when you are focused on tick box and you change the option (moving cursor up/down) it doesn't affect the tab order and you have to go with tab through all input fields to get to the one that correspondent with option you've choosed.
To be accurate - you have to go through "skip extention" tick box and only then through all input fields. And that's the second thing I dislike in tab order.

IMHO it should work like this:
You press tab to focus on the tick box (prefix/sufix/...).
You choose needed option with cursors.
You press tab to get into the input field for that option.
If you've choosed "position", then after input field, tab should take you to the "right-to-left" tick box.
Next tab takes you to the "skip extention" tick box.

Alternatively, it could be like it is, but then any change in any input box should choose the corresponding option.
And even then "right-to-left" tick box should be achievable straight after "position" input field, and only then "after text" input field.

And I would take the "skip extention" to the end (or eventually beginning). I also feel that it suits graphically in that spot, but it doesn't correspond with natural order that you use the rule parameters.

BTW: In Serialize rule (in both 5.20 and beta ver.) there is a very small bug according to tab order. You can't access the "Random" dot box with keyboard.

I hope you'll find that info helpful.

den4b · 2008-03-02 18:41

I'm glad that you are having fun with it

Yes, tab order does get out of the control sometimes, especially when I change the interface bits, sometimes I simply forget to update the tab order of the components.

Anyway, I fixed the problems with Insert and Serialize rules. Try it from here: ReNamerBeta.zip

I can't put "skip extension" in the Insert rule to the end, because it only relates to the "suffix" option.

Note, the tab order generally follows the layout of components, and the components are laid out in the most sensible way, but sometimes most sensible way for one person is not that sensible for another

krtek · 2008-03-03 01:38

Yup, I didn't notice that "skip extention" reffers only to the "suffix" options. Now it makes much more sense to me. And it suits the spot not only graphically, but also logically.
The new tab order is better. Thanks a lot!

But still there are no connection between "dot box" of option and input field for it. I think that's what RaZorbacK had on mind starting that topic.
I'm not pretty sure, but I feel that RaZorbacK didn't mean hiding the unneeded fields (which would: 1. spoil the layout; 2. change the layout very often, so user could be confused), but just "greying" them (and making inactive). So that you could not access these fields with tab, unless you tick appropriate option.
On the other hand, you should still have opportunity to click "greyed" field with mouse and it should became active ("white") and the "dot box" of the connected option should be marked as "the choosen one".
I would see that slightly different. As long, as "tab" reaches the option's "dot boxes" only once (on Prefix) and then goes to parameters (so as far as you need to use cursor keys and not the tab to choose option), I wouldn't make "greyed" fields unaccessible for tab. They could simply became white for the moment you are focused on them (only one option's parameters white at a time). So you could put needed parameter (which would automatically choose/mark the right option) and press Enter to finish "transaction".

Now, you can put anything, eg. "very important text" in the "after text" field and when you press enter you still will have the rule
<<Insert "" as Prefix>>.
All because you've forgotten about that, you should stop tabbing on "prefix", go down to the "after text", and only then, "tab" to the parameter field and put your "very important text" in it. That can be quite frustrating

How to explain that... "Tab" doesn't stop on the "dot box's". You press tab and you're on "Prefix" dot box. You press tab again and you're on "skip extention" (which is the parameter for "Suffix"). And then you go through parameters of all possible options. So you feel that naturally (cause that's the way most of apps do that) if you put your parameter into field and press enter, you will have the corresponding option choosed/marked by presumption. And when you press enter you find out that it's not like that. It took me some time to understand, that if I want to use keyboard, I have to stop "tabbing" and use cursor keys to choose the option. And even then, I am still forgotting about that. So I'm closer and closer to give up using keyboard in Add Rule dialog. I hope you would understand now, what I meant by "the natural order".

When I'm reading my last post now, I see I made a mistake: what I choose as "alternatively" (that any change in any input box should choose/mark the corresponding option) is much more important than the first scheme.

I hope I managed to make myself clear.

And I hope you don't feel being pushed to anything. I'd better stop putting my ideas into "Suggestions", at least for some time.

All the best to you!
Konrad

den4b Forum

#1 2006-05-12 18:36

Hiding unneeded fields

#2 2006-05-12 21:28

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#3 2006-05-12 22:23

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#4 2006-05-13 09:09

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#5 2006-05-17 13:21

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#6 2006-05-17 13:43

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#7 2006-05-21 21:08

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#8 2008-02-29 06:41

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#9 2008-03-02 18:41

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

#10 2008-03-03 01:38

Re: Hiding unneeded fields

Board footer