[Feature request] Consistent behavior in studios (usability)

[Jowday]

Consistent behavior wanted pleased 

What works as expected and how it should be done

• Add Global colour - you are presented with a dialog with an active cursor in the input field and you name the colour as the first thing 

Issues

• Select Rename palette - a dialog appears but there is no cursor in the input field
• Select Add application palette and it is created as Unnamed x - you have to rename it (through the tiny studio menu) and the dialog that appears... you guessed it.. has no active cursor  
• Why is the first letter in so many words like Document capitalized? 

I gave up highlighting 

[GarryP]

Sometimes, consistency can obstruct a smooth workflow.

For instance, when I’m creating global colours, each colour is usually quite different from the others and I can see easily which one I want when I need to select it without needing to know what it’s called. Having to name every global colour as I create it would add extra time and effort that isn’t usually required. (I do, sometimes, name global colours but it’s normally only when I have colours that look similar in the little swatches.)

As a flight of fancy, to take consistency to a ridiculous level, it could be argued that if things that can have names should always force the user to give them a name – a consistent way of doing things, it could be argued – then the user would also be forced to name every new layer, which would be a chore, at best. This isn’t what I would want – and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you are suggesting, or what anyone else would want – I’m just using it as an exaggerated example of where consistency across functionality would be a bad thing. Consistency isn’t always best, just preferable in some cases.

However, I do agree with you that, when a dialog pops up whose only requirement is that the user enters a name, the focus should be immediately switched to the text input field so we don’t have to manually click in it before typing the name. These dialogs are modal, therefore forcing the user to do something with them, and they only have one thing the user can do so they should allow the user to do it as quickly as possible with little fuss.

As for the capitalisation of menu items, this is a discussion/argument which has gone on for some time (probably since the first UI menus were created) and will probably never end. See this answer in stackoverflow for a decent precis: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2371226/capitalizing-texts-in-user-interface/2371618#2371618 There is no ‘right’ answer for this, just differences of opinion which have their own pros and cons.

[walt.farrell]

On 12/14/2019 at 6:53 AM, Jowday said:

• Select Rename palette - a dialog appears but there is no cursor in the input field
• Select Add application palette and it is created as Unnamed x - you have to rename it (through the tiny studio menu) and the dialog that appears... you guessed it.. has no active cursor  

My complaint related to those: I click on the hamburger icon to rename or delete something. At that point, typically, my mouse is at the extreme right of the screen, so I can access the icon. The popup menu is attached to the icon, where it is convenient to my mouse. All is good so far.

But then, the dialog box to do the rename, or confirm the deletion, pops up at the middle of the screen and I have to move the mouse pointer a long ways to actually complete the action.

[GarryP]

Agreed, as with Jowday.
If the dialog received focus for the user to start typing immediately and the ENTER key accepted the change and closed the dialog (normal behaviour) then it would require a lot less mouse work.

[Jowday]

I don't suggest obligatory naming of layers. For good reason;  they have visual clues (thumbnails) so if you dont name them, you still get a hint. AND double click them and you can easily name them. The cursor is even active in the input field when you do. All is well.

But lists only available in dropdown menus with content only visible after you select them - I will never let them keep the generic auto labels... so I have to rename them through a click'n'move intensive workflow. Why would I not label an application palette fx.

I just don't experience the different workflows as meaningful. I understand that some users will find it perfectly okay to name their settings later, but the lack of an easy naming method is just plain annoying. Especially when you do it quite a few times as part of a structured, well disciplined workflow.