NextSTART Taskbar Preferences tab:



I'll need your opinion on this one as I had to make a tough choice on it and I'm still not sure I made the right one.

To keep things as simple as possible, on the new UI the most often used options are displayed on a Preferences tab and the remaining, more obscure (or 'least used' options), 'buried' in secondary or tertiary dialogs. This way no functionality is lost while at the same time keeping the UI simple and with plenty of white space (at least the first level of the UI).

The problem with the taskbar tab is that it deals with just too many things. In fact, in the old UI it took two whole Preference pages (and lots of secondary dialogs) filled to the brink with settings, one for the Tasklist & Systray and another for the Startbar (which, by the way, has now been renamed to 'NextSTART taskbar' to avoide confusing new users) to configure it.

At first I thought about including common settings such as taskbar position, tasklist icon size, systray button settings, etc... in the Taskbar page, but it quickly became evident that there are just too many 'common' settings. Doing it this way would overcrowd the Taskbar Preferences tab with a mix of losely related settings (some for the tasklist, others for the systray, others for the taskbar, etc...) while at the same time still not providing enough space to put all the common settings in.

So I decided to use the available space to explain to the user some of the abilities of the NextSTART taskbar and keep just the essential settings visible (the most important being, obviously, the 'Allow NextSTART to replace the Windows taskbar'). I also categorized the different taskbar sections into independent dialogs.

The major problem with this approach, the way I see it, is that the most often used settings, such as tasklist icon size, are now 'buried' in secondary dialogs. On the other hand, this is perhaps a minor issue because each section is now independently categorized instead of mixed with the others (the Startbar tab in the old UI, for instance, had the settings for the Startbar itself, Quick Launch section, Start Button section, WorkShelf section, etc.., all on the same page).

What do you guys think?

Hi Jorge
Your rational for setting out the preferences tab as you have is quite sound and should indeed work well.
As a secondary method of finding the setting you are after could I suggest a search box that takes the user to the required setting place in Preferences.
I used a file utility called Directory Opus and it has a huge number of user preference settings and they use this system. I have found it really helps the user find the setting or area they are after even if it is 'buried in secondary dialogs'. Helps reduce the chance of the user getting overwhelmed and heading for the forums when not really necessary.
Just a thought

Cheers

Can't you seperate the taskbar in two parts, the looks and the functionality? Or would you consider it cluttering up too much?

My opinion (for what it is worth):

I like the way you have presented it - simple & uncluttered!
My rationale: I think most, if not all, newbies will be happy with default settings which are buried. But, they have the option of investigating... The critical decisions are staring them in the face.

Looks Great!

Looks just fine to me, could the buttons be stacked as the task bar is numbered. i.e button 1 = Start Button settings, button 2= Quick Launch area, button 3= Tasklist area etc.

I stacked the buttons as gjbth suggested.

I'll post some more screenshots of the new Prefs some time later, but first I think you are going to like this:

On Xtreme 9.5 I introduced the new system tray, which, being a 'copy' of the original, has none of the drawbacks the old one had (transparent backgrounds/animated icons sometimes not being rendered properly, etc...).

The potential for the new systray is enormous (think multiple copies of the systray, i.e.; systray menus, systrays in docks and shelves, configurable systray icons and icon size, etc...) but I haven't had time to expand on this potential yet.

However, I just made a couple of simple changes to the NextSTART systray:

1. The size of the new systray is finally independent of the size of the Windows taskbar, and it adapts to the size of the NextSTART taskbar (e.g. it becomes multi-row on a multi-row taskbar).

2. Finally added the option to show the date on the systray button (for some reason the guys trying to reproduce the Win7 look using Winstep over at DeviantArt were going gaga over this ).

3. The systray button no longer grows to enourmous sizes with multi-row systrays.

There is one minor problem with all this, however: the new systray is NOT compatible with Windows versions prior to Windows 2000 (under Win9x, for instance, Xtreme 9.5 uses the old systray capture method).

I think the time to drop support for the legacy Win9x and NT4 systems has finally come (is anyone even still using Win9x?!). I won't be preventing Xtreme from running on those systems, I simply won't be testing the new features on them anymore.

Jorge:

Now, all you have to do, is prevent my system tray & clock from disappearing occasionally!!! (he, he)

Goes without saying...

You're up late!!! Getting that new GUI perfected, no doubt...

When I was overseeing software development for a medical device to treat cancer with heat (called hyperthermia), I could barely stand having to stop working. It can become addictive when there is a lot to be gained.

I've been working non-stop lately... Unfortunately time feels like sand slipping through my fingers, and support has been suffering a bit lately because of how focused I am on finishing the new UI.

This said, I'm pretty happy with the way things are turning out (although I'm also pretty much sick of doing UI design, hehe).

Also, all going well, within a week or so I should have a new development system up and running: powered by a core2 i7 and 3 Intel 80 GB SSDs in RAID 0 , it comes with the 64 bit version of Win7 Ultimate. This will be very good news for 64 bit users, as I will finally be eating the same dog food they are (figuratively speaking, of course, hehe).

I have not ordered a new custom-made computer yet because of Intel's problem with their x25-M G2 SSD. The Firmware update for this drive causes serious problems in Windows 7.

I have tried for weeks to get an answer from Intel as to when this problem would be fixed. They wrote back that there was already a fix. Their link was not for the G2 (34 nm?). I wrote back & have not received any further info.

Jorge, what would be the implication of having the X25-M G2 without the firmware update with Windows 7? I do not pretend to understand all this!

As far as I know, the problem of data loss due to a firmware bug with the TRIM command has been solved already. Besides, the TRIM command is currently not supported on SSDs in a RAID 0 configuration, so it wouldn't affect me anyway.

I promised a few more shots, so here you go (things are still liable to change, of course):

















Anybody has any particular requests for the new systray?

Unbelievable: you would expect Intel Tech Support to direct me to the proper link. I told them it was for the G2, 34nm!!!

I'm also thinking RAID 0. Did not realize the TRIM was not supported in RAID 0. Jorge, I suppose then that the WRITE performance with 2 SSDs in RAID 0 without TRIM will be better than 1 SSD with TRIM? Correct? Thanks for all the info.