software-store-developers team mailing list archive

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aaron Peachey wrote on 19/06/11 01:03:
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas
>...
>> 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?

I don't know what else would practically fit in that space. (Even some
package names would already be wrapped.)

>> *   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.

True.

> 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.

Remember that some application names are long enough to wrap to two
lines (depending on the window width).

>...
>> *   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).

I'm interested in seeing that mockup. :-)

>>    -   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?

On one hand, we hope to get to a world of tens of thousands of
applications, and in that world the package name would be much less
important than the combination of vendor + application name.

On the other hand, as I mentioned recently, at UDS we had a request to
make package names *more* prominent.
<https://lists.launchpad.net/software-store-developers/msg00066.html>
And we can expect more of that, now that Synaptic is no longer installed
in Ubuntu 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.

Good point, I hadn't realized that.

> 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)
>...

Also a good point. Thanks for the review.

- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk4JvuwACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecpCxgCeIRn2Awcna4ZOdwA3as6pSJ0B
cUgAmwV0dez85OzKeUIE9ok/Go3KanF+
=Rtaj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----