software-store-developers team mailing list archive

[Aaron Peachey <alpeachey@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I drew a wireframe adding these three things to the existing layout.
> Then I tried a major rearrangement to see if I could find a better layout.
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=p58-small.png>
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=p59-small.png>
> (second attempt at the major rearrangement)
I like it. However, with the metadata in a 'left margin' but it
results in a lot of wasted space in that left hand margin underneath.
Perhaps we could add something else (e.g. reviews or recommendations)
below that?

> *   The installation state bar is gone, replaced by an "Install for
>    Free", "Buy for $X", or "Remove" button under the summary (like in
>    USC 2.0).
>    !   This would require figuring out where to put the other stuff
>        that appears in that bar, like progress bars and error messages.
I don't know why this layout precludes us from having the bar. It
seems like it should be fine to keep it.
But if so, I'm thinking we could move the average rating from
right-aligned to immediately follow the application name and then have
the progress bar right aligned at the top level when it is in use.

> *   The description is collapsed down to a single paragraph or so, with
>    the rest available by clicking an expander.
I like this but think we should determine the optimum paragraph size
so that the chance of needing to click the expander is minimised for
most applications.

> *   The technical metadata (package name, version, size, license etc) is
>    moved into a column by itself, below the icon.
>    +   This would reduce the scrolling required to get to reviews (or,
>        for that matter, to get to the metadata).
I agree, the metadata near the top is a good idea
As above, I think there is an opportunity to put reviews in the margin
itself. (I can mock this up if it doesn't make sense in written form).

>    -   It would work poorly for long package names.
Do we need to consider the value of the package name being shown by
default? Personally, I only use package names when I am searching for
something I've seen on the web, but in most cases I use apt-get for
these anyway so the package name in USC is superfluous to me.
I think our search should still use the package name but wonder what
use cases we have for it being in the app details screen by default?

> *   The "Reviews" section shows the average rating (as well as the
>    distribution of ratings). This conflicts with showing it at the top
>    of the screen, though.
>
I like the distribution of ratings idea.
It doesn't make sense to have the average rating in two places,
especially if the top section stays fixed on scrolling.
Showing only the single 'most useful' review by default is an issue I
think. The usefulness of that review becomes self-perpetuating as it
is shown by default and already has a history of being useful, it is
more likely to have its usefulness rating increase while reviews that
are not shown are destined never to reach top position. (We already
show the most useful review at the top, so this issue already exists
in some form, but I believe it would be worse if we only showed 1)

cheers
Aaron