Consider making an even more compact style in the new library, especially for folder display

Tomas Hnyk shared this idea 4 months ago
Gathering feedback

I overall like the new library, but I think the display of folders (expecially with a folder that only contains folders) could be made even slimmer. See screenshot attached - there is a lot of whitespace. Since there are 90 folders in the folder, I would appreciate having more in the single view.

I imagine a style that would have roughly half of the vertical space per folder, showing all the info as now in the screenshot. Basically as high as the eye icon. Then for tracks and points, it would only show icon/miniature, name and the eye icon (so everything would be on one line). I know this might not be for everyone, especially people with thick fingers would suffer, but I am quite sure I would love this. Maye it could be called "ultraslim".

Replies (6)

photo
2

I would prefer to leave it as it is. Elements that are too narrow are more difficult to operate.

At best as an optional setting.

photo
2

Yes, I definitely meant it as an option - there are already two styles, this would be third. I should have probably made it more clear.

photo
2

allow style/view on a per folder basis, then everyone is happy?

photo
2

Differentiate between folders and tracks/points in style. Slim folders and Full tracks/points.

photo
photo
3

As only half (!) of the amount of points are visible in new MyLibrary and 75% for tracks, and this despite a whole row more space is now available (bottom icon bar is now a menu), I'd really like a third + forth option "compact slim" + "compact full" besides current list modes slim and full. Nothing fancy, just less whitespace and more dense font as we had before, i.e. as visible in top right compact but in contrast to lim (right bottom) including elevation meters, first words of description, and a bigger thumbnail. Just for comparision, same data in v4.23.1 (top) versus v4.30.1.7beta (bottom)2c403daec69c0425ba672f8e768d25ec7e22ec492b5f583b80a6b638d6536e36

photo
2

Also for points and tracks! There's waaay to much whitespace.

photo
1

Hi guys,

thanks for the idea and detailed description (mainly @Georg D). Current design is heavily based on Google team recommendation. We are not always perfectly OK with all the suggestions, but in case of items in the scrollable list, we try to follow it and also keep it consistent across the app (at least new UI items we work on it).

So, for now, I would like to stick with current design. Creating even "more slim" layout is technically more complicated, because we will have to write completely new components next to these united re-usable items we already have. I understand that currently more-spacey design may be little un-usually compare to old design we all used for years. But it brings a lot easier manipulation in the field, easier separation of items and generally better usability and polished design.

I'll leave this idea open for now and we will see if number of votes will grow. I hope not to be true ... thanks for understanding.

photo
1

Actually my original idea was to achieve more compactnes by possibly showing less. I attach a graphical visualization of what I wrote in the original suggestion.

Google guidelines make sense as a default option, but they do not work for everyone. I for one am not a large person, my fingers are quite nimble (I would not be surprised if the Google guidelines were written by a large man, haha, Google employees are not exactly representative of population) and can handle slimmer items.

Seems like this idea got shared somewhere on the forum or something like that as it got quite a few new votes recently.

photo
2

Hm, better Usability? For one the map preview is smaller and thus harder to see and tap (I often have to long press it to render the track). Also I always appreciated how your app was more useful and efficient than other apps that at first glance may have looked "nicer" but were cumbersome to use. As a software dev I understand your point about using standard controls but that cannot be the guideline if it sacrifices perfect UX over a mediocre one!

George D's comparison makes it sooo obvious that the new design has nothing to do with "getting used to" (the killer argument of all inexperienced designers...). Your use of fonts and colour was waaay better than it is now. I truly regret I updated just before my holiday 🀧

photo
2

It is hard for me to correctly argue here. After all these years, we still do not have a designer in our team and UI is fully based on practice experience and discussions in team and forum users ... 😢.

Anyway, I've not wrote "getting used to" ... this sounds rude and I do not want to use this languge. My opinion is based on our personal experience in the field, where these changes allows us more precise control and less mistakes. And also, of couse, consistency with the rest of the app (as I already wrote).

Also, with the slim mode, you may see only a little less points and even more tracks than before...

Problem with small size of track previews > yes, I'm well aware of it and it is impossible for me, to make them bigger in current design. I already have in mind third layout style "grid", that will look like a photo gallery with big overviews. But it needs some time.

Thanks for trying to understand.

photo
2

Dear all,

interesting discussion πŸ™‚ Reading bold parts of my answer is enough to quickly get the points, the remaining is for those interested in details.

I agree to Tomas that Google guidelines as default are fine – so e.g. users first time trying Locus will have a familiar UI and feel at home, or those preferring a consistent UI across all apps over UIs that are optimzed for an app's purpose can have that.

I agree to Menion that "Google UI" brings easier manipulation in the field, allows us more precise control and less mistakes – yes, that extra big padding helps when my mobile is shaken, e.g. while riding my bike or walking. But in majority of cases when I'm using folder view of My Library, I'm planning/researching and standing/sitting/laying so my mobile is in constant position and my interaction is very precise – no need for extra big padding.

Which design is more "polished" or "beautiful" is a matter of personal taste + current trends, so it's difficult as base for discussion, and moreover, these categories are not really important for Locus: Locus is not a background image that only needs to look nice, but a powerful tool – thus I fully second Frank that "good design" is for Locus one that allows to do the work efficiently. For planning/researching with My Library, I want as much information as possible at one glance, so let's look at objective aspects:

  • Listing Folders: "Slim" 7 shows folders, "Full" 6.75 and old UI showed 9.5 – so old layout showed 29% more with same displayed details except "Full" showing the amount of sub-folders (i.e. 1 icon and 1 integer number so requiring only little space). Slim is only minimal slimmer than Full, which would be addressed by Tomas' suggestion.
  • Listing Points: "Slim" and "Full" show 6, whereas old 10 – so old shows 66% more with same displayed details. I don't consider 66% to be "only a little less/more".
  • Listing Tracks: "Slim" 6.5 shows tracks, "Full" 3 and old UI showed 4.25 – so "Full" shows 29% less than old and "Slim" 53% more at the "price" it does not show first part of description (which I usually want to have) and elevation gain – Tomas suggests even less information.
    cb6ca5628ce700fbf185f2f09d775da66a2a55e0bbeb8bcec37c63533ff3658d
  • Tracks thumbnail is too small for me. I often cannot even tell apart track line (color coded elevation) from map background within rooms, and that's even worse in bright outdoor, examples in screenshot are 2nd and 3rd track and in left the lowest (2022-03-01) (the dark horizontal line at top is not part of the track). Depending on shape of track, current thumbail is too small to identify a track by shape. Map labels (city/mountain/.... names) don't show up any more, so there's less orientation anchors. These new thumbnails are usually not helping me getting my work done, the old ones usually did.
  • In "Full", Dates are often cut, usually the year is missing. Didn't happen in old UI.

My motivation to participate in this topic is gettting a UI allowing efficient use, not about what I am used for years. For example, if you introduced squeeze gesture so users can quickly switch through styles or toggle thumbnail size, I'll certainly use it. If you introduced that Locus uses accelerometer information to dynamically render more or less padding, welcome! If you added possibility to configure which information to display in a folder, it will solve this topic with nearly all desires satisfied and I'll use it (e.g. for tracks, elevation is highly interesting for mountain sports but not sailing or car drives, Tomas had his desired 1-line-per-track-view, and as I have date in title (for export/share/...) I don't need a dedicated field for it but would show average speed).

@"Creating even "more slim" layout is technically more complicated"
Can't you use the existing rendering code of pre-v4.27 with My Library of v4.28+?

"Grid" would be helpful for me only if it not only showing thumbnails but also text, e.g. one really big thumbnail (maybe similar to rendering at top of details screen of one single track) and some text below like many picture managing apps do.

photo
1

Personally I would not mind if the optional ultraslim view retained the information that it has now but would just be slimmer. Or there could be four - one "minimalist slim" along my suggestion and the other "full slim" retaining the information but slimmer.

I think this is like with all features - they increase the maintanance burden but make the app more useful. Also, I figured out how to add screenshots inline, so here they are (the same ones as above):a41c7a89332ba5cf11b2913b0b4fb8d44b494d9dd3c0354961f42a4b52bff773
0c1d8126411e03b20d30967f088e7811587be317fb6e7995ac23a30da4c9b7d3

photo
photo
2

The old thumbnail view was also too small. You couldn't see anything on it before either. That's not what it's there for. It's used to switch to the map immediately, and it's big enough for that. So please don't make it any bigger and use the space for important information.

photo
2

For me, thumbail of old library was big enough that I could recognize the track.

In case the thumbail is really only for sake to switch to map, why is it not the same icon as at top right in track details screen to avoid false expectation? πŸ€·β€β™‚

photo
1

Exactly. No need to render a track if it was just to switch to the map.

Also I could perfectly make out the track outline and colour to remind me of the track and chose the right one.
In particular when planning on the tablet.

So, freischneider, other people may have different views than you, literally.

photo
photo
1

I agree with Graf Geo. Everything should stay as it is. It's very good. You could set the style for folders and tracks separately. I would make folders slim and tracks full.

I think most people are satisfied. There are only 3 or 4 who want it differently. You can't please everyone.

photo
1

Tjere are literally 8 people who voted for this above, double your "3 or four". And most users do not participate in discussions like these, so there is a lot more people. This is asked for as an option. Most people probably use the default most of the time, that is true. Most people would not use this, also true. But I think most of people change at least one thing. For most of us the things we change is different. So different options increase the usability of the app. There is of course a trade off in terms of maintainbility etc., but as this seems self contained, I think it would be worth it.

photo
Leave a Comment
 
Attach a file