TM1 Forum

Steve Vincent, this one's for you. Who am I kidding? It's for all of us. I've raised 63593 on the DeveloperWorks RFE site. If you have an account and feel the same, please do log in and vote.

Description:

For years users had been asking for the chore icons in Server Explorer to clearly show the ones which are active and the ones which are not. Finally in version 9 we got that; inactive chores were grey, active chores were orange.

In version 10 these icons were changed so that active and inactive icons are exactly the same colour and exactly the same shape aside inactive ones having a low visibility grey box which is 7 pixels high by 7 pixels wide. On a 1600*900 screen that box equates to 0.0034% of the screen. On a 1920*1080 screen, it's 0.0024% of the screen.

Or put another way, for all intents and purposes the box is invisible.

This flies in the face of the whole reason for using icons which is to provide instant recognition of state or function, and in particular to distinguish between one state and another. The version 10 icons fail to do that spectacularly. Ultimately it does not matter whether the icons conform to a particular corporate colour and style standard if they are not in fact usable.

It would be unwise to underestimate the number of users who expressed anger at that change, particularly those who have been around long enough to remember how long it took to get the version 9 improvement which was then yanked away from them in version 10.

Use case

The user wants to do a quick check of their active chores. In version 9 these chores were blindingly obvious and could be identified at a glance. In version 10 the user needs to go down the whole list of chores, one by one, and stare at them (particularly if s/he has a high res monitor) to be sure that the icon is telling them that the chore is on (or off, as the case may be).

Business justification

Having a chore on when you don't want it to be or off when you don't want it to be can have severe implications on loads of data.

The business implications of this should be obvious.

I think we can all see where this one is going.......

jim wood wrote:I think we can all see where this one is going.......

Yeah, I know. Interestingly this is one which has 4 votes, which is the equal highest number for any request on there at present. However what does that matter?

---------------------
IBM Icon Designer (IID); assume the wearing of rounded John Lennon glasses and long grey hair pulled back in a pony tail: "Whert? Change the coleurs? Non! Thees would violate all the precepts of colour theory and tonal balance that are taught at the Ecole de la Tosser-Pretentious!"

IBM Designer Who Actually Has A Clue (IDWAHAC): "But it would make it easier for the users."

IID: "Pah! Feelthy Philistines! What would zey kneow! All that matters is that we maintain the integreety of our icon styles! Usability is such a Bourgeoisie concept!"

IDWAHAC: "OK, but remember what Kirk and the dog said about your icons in their last TM1 Byte."

IID: "Ah speet on heem and his peedling number of subscribers! And the Boxer too! If 'ee knew anything about the artistry of icon deesign 'ee would 'ave a Parisian Poodle with heem instead of some sausage-schnarfing schweinhund from Stuttgart! Barbarians, both of zem!"

IDWAHAC: "By the way, I meant to ask you about your accent; didn't you grow up in Pittsburgh?"
---------------------

Yeah, not going to happen. In the IBM UX space form always triumphs over function these days. Which wouldn't be so bad if the form wasn't so bloody awful as well.

You'll have to try that accent in the next byte

jim wood wrote:You'll have to try that accent in the next byte

You're either a creative genius or you have far too much time on your hands!! I'm leaning towards the former as you always seem to be working or travelling.