I'm trying to decide how to visually represent a user selecting from a list of containers to process. There's the old select items in a single listbox or listview; or use checkboxes in the same; or even require the user move items from one listbox (from the left) to another listbox (on the right), to indicate they should be processed.
Basically, I've got a few hundred folders in the left from which I want the user to hand-pick a few dozen or maybe a hundred, or all of them.
Using Windows Forms controls, how is this typically handled?
Related
Is it normal in a WPF app to create a lot of user controls in order to separate concerns that would otherwise be crammed in a single window with a huge XAML hierarchy? I'm finding that I keep making new user controls, even though I don't intend to reuse them, just so that each of my sub-components has a separate task. I'm also giving each of them their own view model, instead of binding things to properties on one master view model.
Is this normal? I feel like from a code cleanliness perspective I'm doing the right thing. But from a WPF perspective, I feel that this can't be right.
For example, let's say you have a list on the left side of the window, and when you select an item, it changes what's displayed on the right side. There are also buttons above your list to manipulate it, adding and deleting items for example. I would be inclined to pull that whole list out as a UserControl, which would contain just the list and the control buttons above it. Then the main window would just include my new control.
Am I going overboard?
I implemented a data virtualization solution using some ideas from CodePlex and the blog of Bea Stollnitz and Vincent Da Ven Berhge's paper (same link). However I needed a different approach so I decided to write my own solution.
I am using a DataGrid to display about a million rows with this solution. I am using UI virtualization as well. My solution is feasible, but I experience some weird behavior in certain situations on how the DataGrid requests data from its source.
About the solution
I ended up writing a list which does all the heavy work. It is a generic class named VirtualList<T>. It implements the ICollectionViewFactory interface, so the collection view creation mechanism can create a VirtualListCollectionView<T> instance to wrap it. This class inherits from ListCollectionView. I did not follow the suggestions to write my own ICollectionView implementation. Inheriting seems to work fine as well.
The VirtualList<T> splits the whole data into pages. It gets the total item count and every time the DataGrid requests for a row via the list indexer it loads the appropriate page or returns it from the cache. The pages are recycled inside and a DispatcherTimer disposes unused pages in idle time.
Data request patterns
The first thing I learned, that VirtualList<T> should implement IList (non generic). Otherwise the ItemsControl will treat it as an IEnumerable and query/enumerate all the rows. This is logical, since the DataGrid is not type safe, so it cannot use the IList<T> interface.
The row with 0 index is frequently asked by the DataGrid. It is seem to be used for visual item measurement (according to the call stack). So, I simply cache this one.
The caching mechanism inside the DataGrid uses a predictable pattern to query the rows it shows. First it asks for the visible rows from top to bottom (two times for every row), then it queries a couple of rows (depending on the size of the visible area) before the visible area (including the first visible row) in a descending order so, from bottom to top. After that it requests for a same amount of rows after the visible rows (including the last visible row) from top to bottom.
If the visible row indexes are 4,5,6. The data request would be: 4,4,5,5,6,6,4,3,2,1,6,7,8,9.
If my page size is properly set, I can serve all these requests from the current and previously loaded page.
If CanSelectMultipleItems is True and the user selects multiple items using the SHIFT button or mouse drag, the DataGrid enumerates all the rows from the beginning of the list to the end of the selection. This enumeration happens via the IEnumerable interface regardless of that IList is implemented or not.
If the selected row is not visible and the current visible area is "far" from the selected row, sometimes DataGrid starts requesting all the items, from the selected row to the end of the visible area. Including all the rows in between which are not even visible. I could not figure out the exact pattern of this behavior. Maybe my implementation is the reason for that.
My questions
I am wondering, why the DataGrid requests for non visible rows, since those rows will be requested again when become visible?
Why is it necessary to request every row two or three times?
Can anyone tell me how to make the DataGrid not to use IEnumerable, except turning off multiple item selection?
I at least found some way to fool the VirtualList. You can read it here.
If you have found another solution (that is even better than mine), please tell me!
Before I begin, I'm no SL or WPF master, so I need some guidance. What I have is a List<CustomObject> . I then have a view that I can bind a "CustomObject" to and have all the data displayed. Now to keep intack with the Metro guidelines and Navigation guidelines, I want to be able to use the SL Control Toolkit Gesture Service to detect a flick (this part is done and working). When I flick left, it binds current list position -1 when I flick right is binds current list position + 1.
Now, I need to make it pretty. I'd like it to behave similar to the pivot control, as when I hold down, it moves the grid to the left and when the full flick is created it slides away to the left or right and loads the the next item.
These lists can have 100's of items, so dynamically adding them to a Pivot control isn't an option.
I know I have to capture the OnDelta and start moving the grid, but I'm really trying to find a sample that's similar to what I'm looking for to give me all the peices. There used to be a few custom implementations of the Pivot and Panorama control but I can't find them.
Any ideas that can point me to the right place?
Thanks!
Because you need to create multiple instances of whatever displays your CustomObject I would consider using a Pivot control with three items in it. The three items should be the current item and the ones either side of it.
As the user navigates between items update the DataContext/Binding of the other items so they reflect the itesm next to the one currently displayed. (You'll only need to set one at a time.)
I've used this technique successfully in apps where each page wasn't excessively complicated to load. (When it was there was a lag when navigating quickly between items.)
I'm developing a Winforms application which has been running for years with an explorer view (TreeView left, screen right). I means that:
All the screens have an hierarchy organization
All the nodes on TreeView have one and only one screen related.
A screen gets activated when a node on treeview gets selected.
One of the advantages is that the user has an ordered stucture and one of the inconveniencies is that with hundreds of screens the user gets confused.
I see other options: use classical menus, use tabs or a mix of everything.
Any advice for a good way to show a lot of screens to user in a user-friendly way?
Update: I'm changed "hundreds screens" by "a lot of screens". The most important thing is not show all at time but that the user can find what they need easily.
Update2: In this proposal, the user only see one screen at time.
Update3: I'm talking about handling multiple screens not showing multiple screens. No MDI, only one ontime.
I have used other applications similar to this is the past, and the major problem is trying to find the exact screen you want. There are two common solutions to this problem, shortcut codes and favorites menu.
With the shortcut codes, allocate a short code (5 or 6 characters) to each screen. The user then inputs this shortcut code into a text box which will then jump to the correct screen. Users will create their own list of often used codes.
For the favorites menu, allow users the ability to be able to create their own menu list in the structure they want. They will find things easier, if they organize it themselves.
Why do you need to show so many seprate screens at once? Why not just show the screen for the currnetly selected node, why are all needed at once?
If it is all tabular data is is probably too much to be consumed all at once, if it is graphical data, could it not be combined?
There may be a valid reason to show all the data at once or there may not, hard to tell from what is provided in your question. With that said, better to keep it simple than overload the user. MDI apps are never easy to use.
Tabs may work for a small set of items but still is not a good UI for hundreds of items.
If you are only showing one element at a time, out of hundreds possible on the tree nodes, then that is fine. The one screen showing at a time would be contextual to the item selected as the user moves through the nodes. Think of the Outlook approach where what is selected in the left pane is displayed in the right pane in whatever form fits the data being displayed.
Have you considered the Office Ribbon?
The Ribbon gives you a lot of flexibility on how to show and
organize functions and it's highly visual.
Here is a good link about the Ribbon and also here
To use the Ribbon you have to license it from Microsoft. You can do that online.
Providing the user with ketboard shotcuts is usually a good thing too.
I also like to provide the user with an "autocomplete" field on the menu
so that they can can find the function by name (or part of it) and be
able to navigate directly to where they want to go.
I general I find trees to be a bad idea, especially if your "hierarchy" is of a small fixed depth.
If you have a small fixed depth, consider replacing the tree with a list. At the top of the list can be drop-downs for filtering based on the node-level properties. It will use up less screen real-estate because it is vertical-only, with no horizontal component.
Clicking on an item can display it in the view (like currently), but it may be a good idea to allow a user to double-click on more than one item which could launch more windows, or tile with the existing displayed items. (I am assuming that currently, the user only sees a single detailed view at once in any given window.)
Actually, it’s hard to beat a hierarchy for organizing large numbers of items. I wouldn’t favor a classical pulldown menu for vast numbers of windows because it would be even harder to keep track of where you are than in a tree (e.g., a tree lets you look in multiple branches at once). But here’s a few alternatives:
I’m not clear how you ended up with so many windows, but maybe it comes from combinations of classes, views, content, and detail, or maybe it comes from using a task-centered UI structure for something far too complex (I’ve more on that at http://www.zuschlogin.com/?p=3). For complex apps, you want a different primary window for each significant class of data object (e.g., invoices, employees). These are listed on one menu, and typically there’s few enough (15 or less) that it can be single non-cascading pulldown menu. The content of each window is set by a separate menu, perhaps by a menu item that opens a dialog that may include a list box (like an Open dialog) or other controls for querying/searching. The “view” of each window (how the data objects are shown, e.g., table versus form) is set by menu items in the View menu. Details for any given object in a window can be shown in a separate pane within the window in a master-detail relation, essentially turning you data objects into a menu for details. A single window can have multiple detail panes for the user to open and close to select the specific detail to show. Tabs may also be used within a single pane to fit subdivisions of content.
You say it’s not important to show all window options at once, but often showing all options at once makes it easiest for users to find what they need. Maybe you need a “home” window that lists all the other windows in organized, labeled, and separated categories. This is will be easier to use than the tree if your users select a window then stick with it for most of the session. Your tree is better if there's frequently selection of windows throughout the session, owing to the overhead of getting to the home window. If all windows/options don’t fit on a single home window, then show only selected common windows for each category on the home window and provide a button or link to show an exhaustive list.
If you’re talking 100’s of windows, maybe you should have Search, perhaps in addition to a menu-based browse approach to getting to a window.
In any case, providing easy access to the few most commonly used windows is a good idea. Such windows can be explicitly selected by the designer, based on user research, or selected by the the user (favorites), but it also typically works well to make it automatic with an algorithm that uses some combination of frequency and recency of use.
What do you think is the best way to present a hierarchical list of functionality to users within your traditional WinForms application? (A menu system - Assume functionality can be split into a small number of modules and sub-modules but with no fixed depth in terms of those sub-modules).
Do you like the traditional drop down menu system, ribbons, docked toolbars, a treeview approach or any other innovative ideas?
An important thing to consider in your design is Usability vs Discoverability.
The best solution depends strongly on who you users are. The UI requirements for a kiosk application for tourists in a city centre are very different to those for a control screen at a power station...
I often have a toolstrip docked on top for those functions that is most used. And all other as drop down menues with hotkeys set.
If I have a list that can contain different types of items I use a bottom docked toolstrip that change its content depending on the selected item in the list. That way I only have buttons/icons that is relevant for the task and not a bunch of disabled buttons irritating the view.
I also add a context menu for the items that automagically fills with the same choises as the bottom toolstrip. That way I give a faster way to get to the "action" without having to move the mouse down to the bottom of the screen.
I really hate the ribbon-thing (as a user) so I dont use it as a programmer in my projects.
In my opinion the best way is to make sure everything can be done in several ways.
Menus
Keyboard shortcuts
Toolboxes ...
So the user can choose it's way around.
What I really like to see in more application is that a menu or option is directly attached to the selected item (control) a user is looking at. And of course the menu is in context with the given content.
I have implemented this in my open source project Monex and I really like using it myself. Just look at this screenshot.
You could always opt for the increasingly ribbon control. Microsoft/Office interfaces have a habit of becoming the user's expectation of norm (eventually).
Menubars, toolbars, and Ribbons are used for commands, where the user selection of an item acts on a data object displayed in the window or the application as a whole. Which one you use depends primarily on the number of commands in your app.
Toolbar alone: About 20 or fewer commands. Provide both icons and text labels for each command button. Represent the hierarchy by separators. Have no more than two levels –flatten your hierarchy accordingly.
Menubar with toolbar: Over about 20 but less than about 1000 commands. Up to twenty menu items on a single menu (using separators) is generally better than cascade menus –flatten your hierarchy accordingly. Common commands should have accelerators. Generally limit your toolbar to no more than 30 of the most commonly used commands, primarily commands otherwise only accessible from within a dialog box. Consider not having toolbar controls for menu items that have accelerators –one good means of expert access is often sufficient.
Ribbon: Over 1000 commands. A Ribbon is little more than putting different menubars-and-toolbars on separate tabs. To work well, the tasks associated with each tab (the top of your function hierarchy) should be non-integrated –users relatively rarely switch from one to the other. The Ribbon is also tends to be more effective for promoting discovery of advanced features at the price of discoverability and efficiency of basic features.
Check if items in your function hierarchy may be better represented as attributes rather than commands. Commands carry out a process, such as Open, Find, and Copy, while attributes change specific characteristics of something, such as Font, Size, and angle of view. Attributes are set by field controls within your window (e.g., text boxes, check boxes, and dropdown lists) rather than menu items, toolbar controls, or Ribbon controls.
A window-full of such field controls (or other representations of data objects) is a content block. Tree controls may be used to control what content block is shown. Like tab controls, they are preferred over multiple windows when the user frequently switches among the content blocks and does not compare content blocks. Trees are preferred over tab controls when the amount of content will not fit in a single row of tabs.
Do not have any empty nodes in your tree. Anything the user clicks on should display a full pane of content –flatten your hierarchy accordingly, even going to the extreme of using a list box rather than a tree.
If users tend to select one content block, complete a task there, then leave your app, then consider a “home” page displaying a full-page menu of all the content blocks, possibly spatially arrange according to your hierarchy, each accessible with a single click.
In my opinion there is no definite answer to your question. It always depends on the menu you are presenting to the user and the users that are expected to use the application
A menu with standard/common functionalities is probably best presented Office style meaning drop down menus or the new Ribbon style.
A menu with custom functionality and, as you state multiple modules and submodules with different depths, is often best presented as a TreeView-like menu.
Looking from the point of the user, a typical user will do just fine with a standard menu whereas a more advanced user won't mind more advanced features like keyboard navigation or possibility to hide/show the menu or dock it to the other side of the window.