Page 1 of 1

[Done] User-friendly terminology

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:25 am
by rick752
@ Wladimir:

Let me run this by you.

Instead of:
Code: Select all
Advertisement filters
Element hiding rules
Exception rules

... as headings in the users directories in the prefs window. What about something that makes more sense to the user? Like:
Code: Select all
Ad-blocking filters (user created)
Element-hiding filters (user created)
Whitelist rules (user created)

Imho, these would be much more user-friendly than the current terminology. I think that especially adding "user created" in the header would make people understand better that those are NOT OURS .... that YOU put them there! What do you think?

ps: You could also ask people "What do you have in your 'user created' directories" ... instead of naming them all. :wink:

Re: User-friendly terminology

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:54 am
by chewey
I'm not Wladimir, but I'll comment anyhow :-)

I like the idea. A lot, actually. Why didn't I come up with this? ;-)

Maybe even reverse the terminology, so we get:

Code: Select all
user created
  |-> Ad-blocking filters
  |-> Element-hiding filters
  \-> Whitelist rules

  |-> foo
  |-> bar
  \-> baz

Making both collapsible so we get two levels of collapsability (:-) may or may not be user friendly, this would need to be tested.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:58 am
by rick752
Actually, I like THAT idea too, chewey. Keep 'subscriptions' separate from 'users'. :)

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:13 am
by rick752
There are only 2 things that I don't like about the "second level" of collapsing.

1. I don't think that 'average' user should ever collapse filters ... average users should always have filtering (especially their own) "right in their face" so they know what they've added.

2. I like keeping my prefs window narrow. Adding a second collapsing tree would just take up more width in the filter box.

Maybe it would just be nice to have them visually separated with something ... some kind of separator between "ours" and "theirs". Maybe a title "color variance"?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:26 pm
by Wladimir Palant
Rick, I have my doubts that this terminology is more intuitive than what we have now. Though replacing "Advertisement filters" by "Ad blocking filters" might make sense - the current description pre-dates element hiding. I don't think "element hiding" should be written with a hyphen according to English grammar rules (please correct me if I am wrong). And there was a point in calling them "element hiding rules" - they don't really filter anything. "Whitelist" isn't listed in any dictionary I have available and I suspect that this is a technical term - hence "Exception rules".

Making it clear that grouping only applies to user-defined filters is a good idea. But I don't think a two-level hierarchy is justified here since the logical grouping will be invisible most of the time (at least if you have more than a dozen filters), furthermore this will potentially require more clicks to open the required group and will limit the user's choices concerning ordering of groups. But adding "(user-defined)" at the end shouldn't be wrong.

Btw, my impression is that "average" users don't open the preferences in the first place. At least I don't remember any questions about the meaning of the different groups and only once there was confusion about subscription filters not being added to corresponding groups.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:51 pm
by rick752
Rules or filters ... I guess it really doesn't matter. I would think that "filters" would be just more intuitive to a regular user ... and element rules are still filters, just not 'blockers'. I was thinking more along the line of "title consistency" ... "Ad blocking filters" and "Element hiding filters". Or maybe you could just call ALL of them "Rules" for even more consistency (just thinking while typing here). How's this?
Code: Select all
Ad blocking rules (user created)
Element hiding rules (user created)
Allowed item rules (user created)

In any instance, I really think that "user created" is a good idea. I have had many instances were you actually had to explain to people that the "Advertisement filters" (and the others) were not part of any subscription or any part of ABP. That when you asked people is it something that THEY added, they would first be a little confused about what was actually theirs.

Some people also think that the preloaded examples are supposed to be there. Do you think that those examples should even be in there? I don't think people understand what they are for ... they just leave them there because I think they have to be. I would think it would be a little confusing to tell people that those are THEIR filters when they are already in ABP when they install it.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:56 pm
by Wladimir Palant
Rick, I already removed the example rules during the clean-up. I agree that they shouldn't be there, their role has been taken over by subscriptions. Especially since I have seen many people actually use these rules.

Replacing "filters" by "rules" might be the right thing to do...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:11 pm
by rick752
Wladimir Palant wrote:Rick, I already removed the example rules during the clean-up.

OK, I guess I didn't realize that it had been done already. Good! I think it will be better that way. The directory should be created ONLY when the user enters or imports his first rule(s).

sidenote: it's getting quiet in these forums even as ABP and the subscriptions keep growing in use ... this is a good thing :D

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:04 pm
by Wladimir Palant
Wow, this has to wait quite a long time...

What we have now:
Code: Select all
My Exception Rules
My Ad Blocking Rules
My Invalid Rules
My Element Hiding Rules

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:19 am
by rick752
Well, using "My" would definitely make those more clear to the user. Good idea.

ps: Nice job of "dusting off" THIS thread, Wladimir. :D

I remember starting this one a year and a half ago. Wow! :shock:
Nice to revisit it again :)

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:10 pm
by Wladimir Palant