Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>]

Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
September.

If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor was
dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.  A
possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a double-click
to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently assigned.
Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop, configure,
data provenance, etc) would be nice.

The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.


Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com>SubjectRe: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
Streamline visual flow designDateThu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT

So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
- same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
configuration to take place.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>]

Could we use a drag event for the connection action rather than a click
event?  That might help differentiate the two actions.

The inconsistency between double-clicking a process group and a process
would be similar to the inconsistency between creating a connection and
creating a process.  A different object type might be ok to have a
different behavior, especially seeing as a processor isn't a container of
sub-objects.  Opening a process group is intuitive to me; but I also have
double-clicked on processors more times than I care to admit to, trying to
get to the configuration screen.

Take all this for whatever it's worth; I would actually prefer that
connection objects don't go to the properties screen when they're created,
but just connect from the first flow.  A double-click would quickly get you
in to modify as needed, but would "just work" when building the "happy
path" for a file process.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I see your point. Well, consider my thoughts just input to the larger
> puzzle. Better to have well thought out UX than not. Nice to see you
> thinking hard about it. :)
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought about that when I was writing my previous response. The concern
>> there is the amount of 'clickable' space across each type of configurable
>> component (not just processors) and how much precision would be required
>> depending on the current scale of the canvas. Just don't want to make it
>> more difficult by providing less real estate to click. But this wouldn't be
>> a show stopper.
>>
>> However, we do already have double click mapped to Enter a Processor
>> Group. So we wouldn't be able to use double click for configuring a Process
>> Group. Not sure we want to introduce inconsistency in actions across the
>> types of configurable components.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection
>>> handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So,
>>> and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require
>>> the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config
>>> dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are
>>> two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable
>>> connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which
>>> one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only
>>>> concern/hesitation is around the behavior if the double click happens over
>>>> the connection handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a
>>>> connection by shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging
>>>> thereafter the connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued
>>>> with this idea we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior
>>>> to avoid confusion.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <markpetronic@gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
>>>>> intuitive to a user.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <
>>>>> agrande@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open
>>>>>> the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case
>>>>>> where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all
>>>>>> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
>>>>>> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>>>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
>>>>>> To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow
>>>>>> design
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
>>>>>> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
>>>>>> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
>>>>>> September.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a
>>>>>> processor was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out
>>>>>> nicely.  A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a
>>>>>> double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently
>>>>>> assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop,
>>>>>> configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
>>>>>> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
>>>>>> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
>>>>>> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
>>>>>> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
>>>>>> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
>>>>>> small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
>>>>>> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
>>>>>> configuration to take place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>]

I see your point. Well, consider my thoughts just input to the larger
puzzle. Better to have well thought out UX than not. Nice to see you
thinking hard about it. :)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I thought about that when I was writing my previous response. The concern
> there is the amount of 'clickable' space across each type of configurable
> component (not just processors) and how much precision would be required
> depending on the current scale of the canvas. Just don't want to make it
> more difficult by providing less real estate to click. But this wouldn't be
> a show stopper.
>
> However, we do already have double click mapped to Enter a Processor
> Group. So we wouldn't be able to use double click for configuring a Process
> Group. Not sure we want to introduce inconsistency in actions across the
> types of configurable components.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection
>> handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So,
>> and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require
>> the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config
>> dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are
>> two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable
>> connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which
>> one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only
>>> concern/hesitation is around the behavior if the double click happens over
>>> the connection handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a
>>> connection by shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging
>>> thereafter the connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued
>>> with this idea we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior
>>> to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
>>>> intuitive to a user.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <
>>>> agrande@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open
>>>>> the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case
>>>>> where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all
>>>>> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
>>>>> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
>>>>> To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
>>>>> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
>>>>> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
>>>>> September.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor
>>>>> was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.
>>>>> A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a
>>>>> double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently
>>>>> assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop,
>>>>> configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
>>>>> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>>>>>
>>>>> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
>>>>> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
>>>>> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
>>>>> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
>>>>> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
>>>>> small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
>>>>> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
>>>>> configuration to take place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Rick Braddy <rb...@softnas.com>]

Great to see this topic going again.

In the original proposal to address the real estate issue a dockable toolbox, similar to Visio, was proposed.

Perhaps it would help us to do various UI mockup proposals.

Rick

On Nov 13, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I thought about that when I was writing my previous response. The concern there is the amount of 'clickable' space across each type of configurable component (not just processors) and how much precision would be required depending on the current scale of the canvas. Just don't want to make it more difficult by providing less real estate to click. But this wouldn't be a show stopper.

However, we do already have double click mapped to Enter a Processor Group. So we wouldn't be able to use double click for configuring a Process Group. Not sure we want to introduce inconsistency in actions across the types of configurable components.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So, and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only concern/hesitation is around the behavior if the double click happens over the connection handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a connection by shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging thereafter the connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued with this idea we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior to avoid confusion.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most intuitive to a user.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <ag...@hortonworks.com>> wrote:
I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.

I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator expected a Props screen. Oops!)

Andrew

From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org<ma...@nifi.apache.org>" <us...@nifi.apache.org>>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
To: "users@nifi.apache.org<ma...@nifi.apache.org>" <us...@nifi.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in September.

If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.  A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop, configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.

The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.


Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com>>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
Date    Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT

So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
- same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
intuitive way to quickly "configure" a connection when drawn. It could be a
small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
configuration to take place.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>]

I thought about that when I was writing my previous response. The concern
there is the amount of 'clickable' space across each type of configurable
component (not just processors) and how much precision would be required
depending on the current scale of the canvas. Just don't want to make it
more difficult by providing less real estate to click. But this wouldn't be
a show stopper.

However, we do already have double click mapped to Enter a Processor Group.
So we wouldn't be able to use double click for configuring a Process Group.
Not sure we want to introduce inconsistency in actions across the types of
configurable components.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection
> handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So,
> and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require
> the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config
> dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are
> two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable
> connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which
> one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only
>> concern/hesitation is around the behavior if the double click happens over
>> the connection handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a
>> connection by shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging
>> thereafter the connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued
>> with this idea we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior
>> to avoid confusion.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
>>> intuitive to a user.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <agrande@hortonworks.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open
>>>> the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>>>>
>>>> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case
>>>> where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all
>>>> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
>>>> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>>
>>>> From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
>>>> To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
>>>>
>>>> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
>>>> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
>>>> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
>>>> September.
>>>>
>>>> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor
>>>> was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.
>>>> A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a
>>>> double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently
>>>> assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop,
>>>> configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
>>>> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>>>>
>>>> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
>>>> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
>>>> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
>>>> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
>>>> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
>>>> small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
>>>> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
>>>> configuration to take place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>]

Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection
handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So,
and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require
the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config
dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are
two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable
connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which
one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only concern/hesitation
> is around the behavior if the double click happens over the connection
> handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a connection by
> shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging thereafter the
> connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued with this idea
> we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior to avoid
> confusion.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
>> intuitive to a user.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <ag...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open the
>>> Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>>>
>>> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case
>>> where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all
>>> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
>>> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
>>> To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
>>>
>>> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
>>> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
>>> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
>>> September.
>>>
>>> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor
>>> was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.
>>> A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a
>>> double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently
>>> assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop,
>>> configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>>>
>>> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
>>> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>>>
>>> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
>>> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
>>> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
>>> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
>>> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
>>> small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
>>> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
>>> configuration to take place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Matt Gilman <ma...@gmail.com>]

I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only concern/hesitation
is around the behavior if the double click happens over the connection
handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a connection by
shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging thereafter the
connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued with this idea
we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior to avoid
confusion.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
> intuitive to a user.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <ag...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open the
>> Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>>
>> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case where
>> less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all
>> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
>> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
>> To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
>>
>> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
>> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
>> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
>> September.
>>
>> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor
>> was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.
>> A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a
>> double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently
>> assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop,
>> configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>>
>> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>>
>>
>> Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
>> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>>
>> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
>> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
>> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
>> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
>> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
>> small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
>> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
>> configuration to take place.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Mark Petronic <ma...@gmail.com>]

+1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
intuitive to a user.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <ag...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open the
> Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>
> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case where
> less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all
> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>
> Andrew
>
> From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
> To: "users@nifi.apache.org" <us...@nifi.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
>
> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some
> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
> September.
>
> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor was
> dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.  A
> possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a double-click
> to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently assigned.
> Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop, configure,
> data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>
> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>
>
> Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>
> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
> small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
> configuration to take place.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

[Andrew Grande <ag...@hortonworks.com>]

I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.

I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across all deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator expected a Props screen. Oops!)

Andrew

From: Charlie Frasure <ch...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "users@nifi.apache.org<ma...@nifi.apache.org>" <us...@nifi.apache.org>>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
To: "users@nifi.apache.org<ma...@nifi.apache.org>" <us...@nifi.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design

Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting some usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in September.

If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.  A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop, configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.

The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.


Rob Moran <rm...@gmail.com>>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
Date    Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT

So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
- same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It could be a
small in-place editor <http://ui-patterns.com/patterns/InplaceEditor> that
appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
configuration to take place.