[TYPO3-hci] The Constant Triptichon

[Alex Heizer]

Christopher wrote:
> Alex Heizer wrote:
>   
>> Christopher wrote:
>>     
>>> Alex Heizer wrote:
>>>       
>
> <snip>
>
>   
>> My question to you is: with the FE editing, what is the benefit of 
>> making the BE representative of the website layout? Ripping out a 
>> standard BE that we can create documentation for, just so that we can 
>> make two versions of the same interface (both FE and BE), would be a 
>> very bad idea in the usability department.
>>     
>
> <snip>
>
> I've snipped a longish point down to this paragraph--please let me know 
> if you think I miss anything pertinent.
>
> As I see it, there are two points to your argument:
>
>
> 1. There is no /benefit/ to making the BE able to reflect the layout of 
> the FE, and
>   
There are benefits to an admin being able to do this for a user or site, 
and it's been able to be done for quite some time, including using an 
extension to do it (see Joey's post about this earlier in the thread). 
There is no benefit to making this *the* BE interface in place of the 
current one.
> 2. There is the opportunity for considerable /harm/ in doing so (i.e. 
> because it will be impossible to document a 'non-standardized' interface)
>
>
> I think I addressed point 1 adequately in my previous post--essentially, 
> to make the 'columns' section of the Page module reflect the FE layout 
> provides some degree of self-documentation for users in the BE. I think 
> you greatly underestimate how beneficial this could be to users, though 
> I'm not sure what I could do to convince you...
>   
As for benefits, you probably couldn't do anything to convince me since 
about 99% of users I've trained on both FE and BE editing continue to 
use the BE rather than choosing to edit in the FE. So my experience 
indicates for these users it's more natural for them to use the BE.

> For the second point, again, I just think that you're framing the issue 
> incorrectly. I'll see if I can put it very succinctly:
>
> A /standardized/ interface is not necessarily an interface that looks 
> /identical/ in every case. A good illustration of this--though at a bit 
> higher level than what we're discussing here--is the set of controls for 
> opening, closing and resizing windows in various different operating 
> systems...
>   
True, although what you're saying here amounts to discussing the 
differences between IE, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, etc. Photoshop has a 
standard interface between Windows and Mac versions, even if the 
features are in different menus and the icons look slightly different. 
The overall interface is still identical between platforms. This makes 
it easy for Mac users to use Windows-Photoshop tutorials. In contrast, 
my point is when Adobe has made changes to the interface from version 6 
to 7 to CS, all of a sudden some existing tutorials are rendered useless 
for some specific tasks.

> I don't want to draw too strong a parallel between BE and FE, but this 
> is precisely why FE editing is easy to learn for users of different 
> sites in spite of the fact that the elements of the TYPO3 UI do not 
> necessarily occur in remotely similar contexts.
>
> Having said that, there are obviously extremely good reasons for keeping 
> the BE more standardized than is possible for FE editing. But this 
> simply does /not/ have to mean keeping one small (though very important) 
> component of a single module of the BE the same in thousands of 
> installations. We are really only talking about a small part of the Page 
> module. Again, my experience learning and training others to use 
> software is that it is the /elements/ of the interface that really matter.
>   
Since most editors spend most of their time in the Page module, I 
wouldn't consider this to be a "small" part of an installation. 
Technically, yes, but it's the biggest part of an editor's experience. 
Again, in my experience, given equal training in both FE editing and BE 
editing, all the users I've trained use the BE because it allows you to 
move quicker and more efficiently through your entire site when editing 
than having to navigate as a user in the FE.

> Provided that users are adequately instructed in the ins and outs of the 
> various tools available to them in the UI (such as the millions of tiny 
> icons), 
It may not make a difference if you're an in-house developer with a 
single site to maintain, or a small designer who supports a small number 
of discreet installations (I'm not making any assumptions about your 
situation, only explaining from my experience). However, it's been 
really nice being able to send several hundred editors for a couple 
hundred sites to one set of documentation that I don't have to customize 
for each one. And when these users lose the printouts I create for them, 
I send them a link to the videos on typo3.org. Plus, on the subject of 
turnover within an organization, any new user can ramp up quickly by 
studying existing documentation if they can't get ahold of their site admin.

> I don't see why it should cause any particular problems if a 
> relatively small area of the interface varies from site to site. And if, 
> as in this case, the variance occurs for a reason known to and 
> understood by the user (training again), I see even less opportunity for 
> trouble.
>   
If you can rely on existing documentation, it solves a lot of retraining 
hassles down the line if you can answer a question about editing a site 
by sending an existing doc.

> In any case, I doubt I will convince you in the first place, and in the 
> second place, TYPO3 is famous for maintaining backwards compatibility; 
> given these facts, I suggest one or both of the following two options to 
> keep everyone happy:
>
>
> 1. A TSconfig option for switching to/from the standard 'column' layout, 
> and/or,
>
> 2. A checkbox (or other form control) that switches between standard and 
> FE-like views (provided a FE-like view is available) in the Page module.
>   
You can already do these things in the BE (even if it's not very well 
documented). Don't forget about Web->View for viewing the FE in the BE. 
The good thing about T3 is that it can do so much. My point is, since an 
individual can already customize their own installs the way you suggest, 
what would the benefit be to forcing this behavior on everyone in place 
of a BE that already has worked for years which allows thousands of 
existing editors to use existing documentation for? Since, in my 
experience the current BE is the preferred interface just the way it is, 
forcing a different BE on these users would be a step backwards as far 
as usability (they would choose the FE if they wanted it).


Alex