09 July 2012, 12:14

Hi Melissa

Yes, I'm still geting some instances of this, but I fear it's probably a slightly corrupt install and we may just have to 'put up with it' for the time being.

Dan

01 August 2012, 8:41

I'd like to chime in on the first part this one to say that, in my view, suppressing the names and descriptions of artefact blocks in edit mode is a *bad idea* from a usability point of view, especially for new and/or less confident users. It may look cool and uncluttered, but will likely leave many users nonplussed.

I'm reversing this on my instance and will add that to the list of customizations for the next upgrade, but I worry about new admins installing the program for new audiences.

Has there been enough discussion about this?

Might we discuss reversing this in v 1.6 and making a "clean" version the option for those who want it?

01 August 2012, 14:55

We maybe could have an option to choose how the artefacts select box should be presented:

• Icons only
• Icons + text
• Text only

I think it what we can do in Wordpress. If not wordpress it was in spip I think. So according to the experience of your users they can choose between keeping space for usability or for a biger work span.

What do you think?

-dajan

01 August 2012, 15:37

My worry would be increasing user interface complexity...otherwise that could work. Although it wouldn't make Mahara accessible to blind users, it's a step in the right direction on that front.

Or it could be done at the instution/site level by the admin.

I just think that the gain in clutter reduction is not worth the cost.

04 August 2012, 17:19

Hello Don,

I posted a link to your post in the MUG forum at https://mahara.org/interaction/forum/topic.php?id=4757 to see what other users think as a change should not just be decided by developers in the developer meeting.

There was primarily one reason for changing the display: 2 or more lines of icons took up a lot of space on the screen especially on small displays.

Cheers

Kristina