Network connection config dialog prototype

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

Following some discussion with Art Yerkes via email, I've been toying 
around with a resource editor and shifted XP's network connection 
configuration dialog around:

www.furrybeans.co.uk/stuff/netdlg.jpg

Note that this will not be the final dialog, nor will that exact one be 
used - I'm using a resource editor just so I don't have to painstakingly 
recreate each control just to see what it looks like. It's just 
convenient for laying out a prototype.

Ignore the image at the top left - that was there already.

Compare with XP or 2000's dialog and let me know what improvements you 
can think of.

-Andrew

[WaxDragon]

I personally would start with a simple dialog that addresses the
current state of networking.  A dialog that had a radio toggle between
DHCP and static, and the required static fields.  IP Address, NetMask,
Default Gateway, and DNS Server(s).


On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:01:33 +0100, Andrew Silver Blade Greenwood
<lists(a)silverblade.co.uk> wrote:
>   Following some discussion with Art Yerkes via email,
> I've been toying
>  around with a resource editor and shifted XP's network connection
>  configuration dialog around:
>  
>  www.furrybeans.co.uk/stuff/netdlg.jpg
>  
>  Note that this will not be the final dialog, nor will that exact one be
>  used - I'm using a resource editor just so I don't have to painstakingly
>  recreate each control just to see what it looks like. It's just
>  convenient for laying out a prototype.
>  
>  Ignore the image at the top left - that was there already.
>  
>  Compare with XP or 2000's dialog and let me know what improvements you
>  can think of.
>  
>  -Andrew
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
The cheese stands alone.

[Robert Köpferl]

It looks too much of being copied.
I don't like the idea of cloning all concepts of M$ (some are good, 
other can definitively be made better while staying compatible).

In my opinion the dialog should be reduced to what actually is possible. 
People dislike grayed checkboxes. It should be enhanced with time

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>   Following some discussion with Art Yerkes via email,
> I've been toying 
>  around with a resource editor and shifted XP's network connection 
>  configuration dialog around:
>  
>  www.furrybeans.co.uk/stuff/netdlg.jpg
>  
>  Note that this will not be the final dialog, nor will that exact one be 
>  used - I'm using a resource editor just so I don't have to painstakingly 
>  recreate each control just to see what it looks like. It's just 
>  convenient for laying out a prototype.
>  
>  Ignore the image at the top left - that was there already.
>  
>  Compare with XP or 2000's dialog and let me know what improvements you 
>  can think of.
>  
>  -Andrew
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Robert Köpferl]

It looks too much of being copied.
I don't like the idea of cloning all concepts of M$ (some are good,
other can definitively be made better while staying compatible).

In my opinion the dialog should be reduced to what actually is possible.
People dislike grayed checkboxes. It should be enhanced with time

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>   Following some discussion with Art Yerkes via email,
> I've been toying 
>  around with a resource editor and shifted XP's network connection 
>  configuration dialog around:
>  
>  www.furrybeans.co.uk/stuff/netdlg.jpg
>  
>  Note that this will not be the final dialog, nor will that exact one be 
>  used - I'm using a resource editor just so I don't have to painstakingly 
>  recreate each control just to see what it looks like. It's just 
>  convenient for laying out a prototype.
>  
>  Ignore the image at the top left - that was there already.
>  
>  Compare with XP or 2000's dialog and let me know what improvements you 
>  can think of.
>  
>  -Andrew
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

We are cloning Windows... right?

I argee about trying to make things better.

IMO the only thing I think could be infinitely improved is the top box - 
the "connect using" box. What's the point in having an edit box there? A 
text label would do fine, surely?

I had toyed with having the protocol descriptions as tooltips, or have a 
"description" button to the right to pop up information about a protocol....

Can you come up with a design?


Robert Köpferl wrote:

>   It looks too much of being copied.
>  I don't like the idea of cloning all concepts of M$ (some are good,
>  other can definitively be made better while staying compatible).
>
>  In my opinion the dialog should be reduced to what actually is possible.
>  People dislike grayed checkboxes. It should be enhanced with time
>
>  Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>
> >   Following some discussion with Art Yerkes via
> > email, I've been toying 
> >  around with a resource editor and shifted XP's network connection 
> >  configuration dialog around:
> >
> >  www.furrybeans.co.uk/stuff/netdlg.jpg
> >
> >  Note that this will not be the final dialog, nor will that exact one 
> >  be used - I'm using a resource editor just so I don't have to 
> >  painstakingly recreate each control just to see what it looks like. 
> >  It's just convenient for laying out a prototype.
> >
> >  Ignore the image at the top left - that was there already.
> >
> >  Compare with XP or 2000's dialog and let me know what improvements 
> >  you can think of.
> >
> >  -Andrew
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
> >  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Jasper van de Gronde]

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:

>   ...
>  
>  Can you come up with a design? 
I don't know about others, but one thing that has always bothered me 
enormously is that it's hard to get an overview. Perhaps it would be 
possible to list all connections at once in a tree view for example, 
instead of forcing the user to open and close dialogs all the time. It 
might even work to put some of the options in this tree view.
Or perhaps it would be better (as in more attainable) to just open 
property sheets next to tree view instead of forcing the user to 
navigate through multiple windows (first selecting the connection in 
"Network Connections" and requesting its properties, then selecting the 
desired item, click on properties, and then possibly even a click on 
advanced).

To illustrate my thoughts I've created a mock-up that shows a lay-out 
that would at least be an improvement over the XP layout for me:
http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.png
For the mock-up source (Glade+Python, if anyone is interested in 
expanding on this idea):
http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.zip

You'll have to imagine the details like icons and so on, but it shows 
the general idea of putting all the connections in one tree view, which 
makes it easy to quickly navigate to the desired property page, to 
switch between property pages (of different connections) to compare 
settings and last but not least it avoids screen clutter! (try 
navigating to the list of IP addresses under Windows, you'll have four 
windows open!!!)

There would definitely be some details to fill-in. Like what to do when 
navigating to a different property page when the current one has been 
modified but not yet applied? But these issues should be possible to 
resolve, either by looking at what other people do or (when lacking 
satisfactory examples) by devising new solutions.

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

Nice design. I hadn't considered a tree-view!

Only thing is, I'm not sure if the tree-view is necessary - how many 
users visit the network config dialogs more than once in a blue moon to 
adjust something? I only ever delve in there if I'm testing a router for 
someone and have to change my subnet.

Also, I think the protocol-specific dialogs are actually in separate 
modules, and appear as dialogs. I could be wrong. But this would mean 
it'd not be possible to do as you describe :(

But as a compromise - if necessary - maybe it'd be an idea to copy the 
Firefox style of "preferences" dialog, with icons where the tree-view 
is, but have each icon represent a different connection...


Jasper van de Gronde wrote:

>   Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>
> >   ...
> >
> >  Can you come up with a design? 
>
>  I don't know about others, but one thing that has always bothered me 
>  enormously is that it's hard to get an overview. Perhaps it would be 
>  possible to list all connections at once in a tree view for example, 
>  instead of forcing the user to open and close dialogs all the time. It 
>  might even work to put some of the options in this tree view.
>  Or perhaps it would be better (as in more attainable) to just open 
>  property sheets next to tree view instead of forcing the user to 
>  navigate through multiple windows (first selecting the connection in 
>  "Network Connections" and requesting its properties, then selecting 
>  the desired item, click on properties, and then possibly even a click 
>  on advanced).
>
>  To illustrate my thoughts I've created a mock-up that shows a lay-out 
>  that would at least be an improvement over the XP layout for me:
>  http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.png
>  For the mock-up source (Glade+Python, if anyone is interested in 
>  expanding on this idea):
>  http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.zip
>
>  You'll have to imagine the details like icons and so on, but it shows 
>  the general idea of putting all the connections in one tree view, 
>  which makes it easy to quickly navigate to the desired property page, 
>  to switch between property pages (of different connections) to compare 
>  settings and last but not least it avoids screen clutter! (try 
>  navigating to the list of IP addresses under Windows, you'll have four 
>  windows open!!!)
>
>  There would definitely be some details to fill-in. Like what to do 
>  when navigating to a different property page when the current one has 
>  been modified but not yet applied? But these issues should be possible 
>  to resolve, either by looking at what other people do or (when lacking 
>  satisfactory examples) by devising new solutions.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Jasper van de Gronde]

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>   Only thing is, I'm not sure if the tree-view is
> necessary - how many
>  users visit the network config dialogs more than once in a blue moon
>  to adjust something? I only ever delve in there if I'm testing a
>  router for someone and have to change my subnet. 
I agree, but would it hurt them? I feel Windows is just a bit too much 
like a maze in this case.

>   Also, I think the protocol-specific dialogs are
> actually in separate
>  modules, and appear as dialogs. I could be wrong. But this would mean
>  it'd not be possible to do as you describe :( 
In some cases standard dialogs appear to be used along with information 
in the registry that defines what parameters there are, their types and 
values (in particular the RealTek driver I use seems to do this). This 
scheme seems to not very complex than the previous one and should lend 
itself very well to displaying in custom dialogs.
I don't know how common this is though and whether it's only for nic's 
or also protocols for example.

For displaying custom property sheets there appears to be an INetCfg 
interface on (recent versions of?) Windows, but I can't say I fully 
understand the details of what this and would not allow you to do (what 
exactly qualifies as a "network component" for example). And I have no 
idea at all whether something like this is supported by ReactOS.

>   But as a compromise - if necessary - maybe it'd be
> an idea to copy the
>  Firefox style of "preferences" dialog, with icons where the tree-view
>  is, but have each icon represent a different connection... 
If only one level is feasible this might indeed not be such a bad idea 
(although it might get a little clumsy if it contained more than a few 
entries).

[David Johnson]

I would love to see a new UI for ReactOS. I hate the Win95 / NT look.


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:29:04 +0200, Jasper van de Gronde
<th.v.d.gronde(a)hccnet.nl> wrote:
>   Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
> >   Only thing is, I'm not sure if the tree-view
> > is necessary - how many
> >  users visit the network config dialogs more than once in a blue moon
> >  to adjust something? I only ever delve in there if I'm testing a
> >  router for someone and have to change my subnet. 
>  
>  I agree, but would it hurt them? I feel Windows is just a bit too much
>  like a maze in this case.
>  
> >   Also, I think the protocol-specific dialogs are
> > actually in separate
> >  modules, and appear as dialogs. I could be wrong. But this would mean
> >  it'd not be possible to do as you describe :( 
>  
>  In some cases standard dialogs appear to be used along with information
>  in the registry that defines what parameters there are, their types and
>  values (in particular the RealTek driver I use seems to do this). This
>  scheme seems to not very complex than the previous one and should lend
>  itself very well to displaying in custom dialogs.
>  I don't know how common this is though and whether it's only for nic's
>  or also protocols for example.
>  
>  For displaying custom property sheets there appears to be an INetCfg
>  interface on (recent versions of?) Windows, but I can't say I fully
>  understand the details of what this and would not allow you to do (what
>  exactly qualifies as a "network component" for example). And I have no
>  idea at all whether something like this is supported by ReactOS.
>  
> >   But as a compromise - if necessary - maybe
> > it'd be an idea to copy the
> >  Firefox style of "preferences" dialog, with icons where the tree-view
> >  is, but have each icon represent a different connection... 
>  
>  If only one level is feasible this might indeed not be such a bad idea
>  (although it might get a little clumsy if it contained more than a few
>  entries).
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
David Johnson
www.freewebs.com/davefilms/

[Royce Mitchell III]

David Johnson wrote:

>  I would love to see a new UI for ReactOS. I hate the
> Win95 / NT look.
>   
>  
I'm afraid we're only discussing the network configuration interface. 
ReactOS's default interface will be "comfortable" for people 
transitioning for Windows. If you don't like the Win95/NT look, there 
are plans to support uxtheme someday as well as the alternate shells out 
there.

[David Johnson]

Thanks
I did read that... After my post.
Keep up the great work!


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:14:29 -0600, Royce Mitchell III <royce3(a)ev1.net> wrote:
>   David Johnson wrote:
>  
> >  I would love to see a new UI for ReactOS. I hate
> > the Win95 / NT look.
> >
> >  
>  I'm afraid we're only discussing the network configuration interface.
>  ReactOS's default interface will be "comfortable" for people
>  transitioning for Windows. If you don't like the Win95/NT look, there
>  are plans to support uxtheme someday as well as the alternate shells out
>  there.
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
David Johnson
www.freewebs.com/davefilms/

[Rick Langschultz]

I think that the control panel for network configuration should list
currently activated (enabled) devices as well as inactive (disabled)
devices listed the way windows xp and 2000 does it in the network
connections folder. With a reworking of explorer maybe ip address,
hostname and uptime would be displayed. I think if we did an
implementation of mshta.exe reactos could do this quite well. Also
advanced networking features would be enabled. Maybe some nifty
javascript could be implemented to support collapsible menus and
subtopics like winxp does it.

The mshta.exe handles much of the code that the Add/Remove Control Panel
applet installs, uninstalls, and list programs installed. I would guess
these are read from the registry.

Some features may include:

-Active/Inactive
-Windows Device Name, Linux device name (eth0, lo, en0)
-Ip Address (v4, and v6)
-Netmask
-Domain
-Hostname
-Aliases used by the particular device (www.somehost.net)
-Network Uptime
-Quality
-KBs in and out
-Packets in and out
-Firewall status
	-Ipsec
	-Rules (disallow all traffic from anything other than local
network) 	 feature.

Through mshta.exe with the help of perl, tcl, or perhaps even c++ code
could get these statistics and activate changes applied by the user.

[Rick Langschultz]

I think that the control panel for network configuration should list
currently activated (enabled) devices as well as inactive (disabled)
devices listed the way windows xp and 2000 does it in the network
connections folder. With a reworking of explorer maybe ip address,
hostname and uptime would be displayed. I think if we did an
implementation of mshta.exe reactos could do this quite well. Also
advanced networking features would be enabled. Maybe some nifty
javascript could be implemented to support collapsible menus and
subtopics like winxp does it.

The mshta.exe handles much of the code that the Add/Remove Control Panel
applet installs, uninstalls, and list programs installed. I would guess
these are read from the registry.

Some features may include:

-Active/Inactive
-Windows Device Name, Linux device name (eth0, lo, en0)
-Ip Address (v4, and v6)
-Netmask
-Domain
-Hostname
-Aliases used by the particular device (www.somehost.net)
-Network Uptime
-Quality
-KBs in and out
-Packets in and out
-Firewall status
	-Ipsec
	-Rules (disallow all traffic from anything other than local
network) 	 feature.

Through mshta.exe with the help of perl, tcl, or perhaps even c++ code
could get these statistics and activate changes applied by the user.

[Rick Langschultz]

I think that the control panel for network configuration should list
currently activated (enabled) devices as well as inactive (disabled)
devices listed the way windows xp and 2000 does it in the network
connections folder. With a reworking of explorer maybe ip address,
hostname and uptime would be displayed. I think if we did an
implementation of mshta.exe reactos could do this quite well. Also
advanced networking features would be enabled. Maybe some nifty
javascript could be implemented to support collapsible menus and
subtopics like winxp does it.

The mshta.exe handles much of the code that the Add/Remove Control Panel
applet installs, uninstalls, and list programs installed. I would guess
these are read from the registry.

Some features may include:

-Active/Inactive
-Windows Device Name, Linux device name (eth0, lo, en0)
-Ip Address (v4, and v6)
-Netmask
-Domain
-Hostname
-Aliases used by the particular device (www.somehost.net)
-Network Uptime
-Quality
-KBs in and out
-Packets in and out
-Firewall status
	-Ipsec
	-Rules (disallow all traffic from anything other than local
network) 	 feature.

Through mshta.exe with the help of perl, tcl, or perhaps even c++ code
could get these statistics and activate changes applied by the user.

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

 From what I've heard and seen (while playing with Resource Hacker), 
netshell.dll implements the main networking config dialogs. Somewhere 
the TCP/IP protocol driver provides the TCP/IP configuration dialog - I 
don't know where, however.

It'd be great to somehow merge TCP/IP etc. configuration into a single 
Firefox-preferences-style window. Maybe a "configure" button could be to 
the side of each protocol? I don't know...


Jasper van de Gronde wrote:

>   Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
> >   Only thing is, I'm not sure if the tree-view
> > is necessary - how many
> >  users visit the network config dialogs more than once in a blue moon
> >  to adjust something? I only ever delve in there if I'm testing a
> >  router for someone and have to change my subnet. 
>  I agree, but would it hurt them? I feel Windows is just a bit too much 
>  like a maze in this case.
>
> >   Also, I think the protocol-specific dialogs are
> > actually in separate
> >  modules, and appear as dialogs. I could be wrong. But this would mean
> >  it'd not be possible to do as you describe :( 
>  In some cases standard dialogs appear to be used along with 
>  information in the registry that defines what parameters there are, 
>  their types and values (in particular the RealTek driver I use seems 
>  to do this). This scheme seems to not very complex than the previous 
>  one and should lend itself very well to displaying in custom dialogs.
>  I don't know how common this is though and whether it's only for nic's 
>  or also protocols for example.
>
>  For displaying custom property sheets there appears to be an INetCfg 
>  interface on (recent versions of?) Windows, but I can't say I fully 
>  understand the details of what this and would not allow you to do 
>  (what exactly qualifies as a "network component" for example). And I 
>  have no idea at all whether something like this is supported by ReactOS.
>
> >   But as a compromise - if necessary - maybe
> > it'd be an idea to copy the
> >  Firefox style of "preferences" dialog, with icons where the tree-view
> >  is, but have each icon represent a different connection... 
>  If only one level is feasible this might indeed not be such a bad idea 
>  (although it might get a little clumsy if it contained more than a few 
>  entries).
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Robert Köpferl]

I may be wrong, but isn't it possible to embed any window into anoter 
window. Maybe one must change some winstyles bevore. But the tcp/IP's 
dialog (from where it comes) window should be embeddable anywhere.
??

Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>    From what I've heard and seen (while playing with
> Resource Hacker), 
>  netshell.dll implements the main networking config dialogs. Somewhere 
>  the TCP/IP protocol driver provides the TCP/IP configuration dialog - I 
>  don't know where, however.
>  
>  It'd be great to somehow merge TCP/IP etc. configuration into a single 
>  Firefox-preferences-style window. Maybe a "configure" button could be to 
>  the side of each protocol? I don't know...
>  
>  
>  Jasper van de Gronde wrote:
>  
> >   Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
> > >   Only thing is, I'm not sure if the tree-view
> > > is necessary - how many
> > >  users visit the network config dialogs more than once in a blue moon
> > >  to adjust something? I only ever delve in there if I'm testing a
> > >  router for someone and have to change my subnet. 
> >  I agree, but would it hurt them? I feel Windows is just a bit too much 
> >  like a maze in this case.
> >
> > >   Also, I think the protocol-specific dialogs are
> > > actually in separate
> > >  modules, and appear as dialogs. I could be wrong. But this would mean
> > >  it'd not be possible to do as you describe :( 
> >  In some cases standard dialogs appear to be used along with 
> >  information in the registry that defines what parameters there are, 
> >  their types and values (in particular the RealTek driver I use seems 
> >  to do this). This scheme seems to not very complex than the previous 
> >  one and should lend itself very well to displaying in custom dialogs.
> >  I don't know how common this is though and whether it's only for nic's 
> >  or also protocols for example.
> >
> >  For displaying custom property sheets there appears to be an INetCfg 
> >  interface on (recent versions of?) Windows, but I can't say I fully 
> >  understand the details of what this and would not allow you to do 
> >  (what exactly qualifies as a "network component" for example). And I 
> >  have no idea at all whether something like this is supported by ReactOS.
> >
> > >   But as a compromise - if necessary - maybe
> > > it'd be an idea to copy the
> > >  Firefox style of "preferences" dialog, with icons where the tree-view
> > >  is, but have each icon represent a different connection... 
> >  If only one level is feasible this might indeed not be such a bad idea 
> >  (although it might get a little clumsy if it contained more than a few 
> >  entries).
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
> >  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[WaxDragon]

I like Jaspers mock-up, but I still insist that we need to have a
simple, even a throw away design NOW that addresses ReacctOS's current
networking capabilities.  We can make a pretty new network config
interface after that is done.


On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:01:46 +0200, Jasper van de Gronde
<th.v.d.gronde(a)hccnet.nl> wrote:
>   Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>  
> >   ...
> >
> >  Can you come up with a design? 
>  
>  I don't know about others, but one thing that has always bothered me
>  enormously is that it's hard to get an overview. Perhaps it would be
>  possible to list all connections at once in a tree view for example,
>  instead of forcing the user to open and close dialogs all the time. It
>  might even work to put some of the options in this tree view.
>  Or perhaps it would be better (as in more attainable) to just open
>  property sheets next to tree view instead of forcing the user to
>  navigate through multiple windows (first selecting the connection in
>  "Network Connections" and requesting its properties, then selecting the
>  desired item, click on properties, and then possibly even a click on
>  advanced).
>  
>  To illustrate my thoughts I've created a mock-up that shows a lay-out
>  that would at least be an improvement over the XP layout for me:
>  http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.png
>  For the mock-up source (Glade+Python, if anyone is interested in
>  expanding on this idea):
>  http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.zip
>  
>  You'll have to imagine the details like icons and so on, but it shows
>  the general idea of putting all the connections in one tree view, which
>  makes it easy to quickly navigate to the desired property page, to
>  switch between property pages (of different connections) to compare
>  settings and last but not least it avoids screen clutter! (try
>  navigating to the list of IP addresses under Windows, you'll have four
>  windows open!!!)
>  
>  There would definitely be some details to fill-in. Like what to do when
>  navigating to a different property page when the current one has been
>  modified but not yet applied? But these issues should be possible to
>  resolve, either by looking at what other people do or (when lacking
>  satisfactory examples) by devising new solutions.
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
The cheese stands alone.

[Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood]

I was going to create such a thing, but the general concensus in IRC at 
least appeared to be that we shouldn't have a "quick hack" and should 
focus on the final product already.


WaxDragon wrote:

>  I like Jaspers mock-up, but I still insist that we need
> to have a
> simple, even a throw away design NOW that addresses ReacctOS's current
> networking capabilities.  We can make a pretty new network config
> interface after that is done.
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:01:46 +0200, Jasper van de Gronde
> <th.v.d.gronde(a)hccnet.nl> wrote:
>   
>
> >  Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
> >
> >     
> >
> > >  ...
> > >
> > > Can you come up with a design?
> > >       
> > >  
> > I don't know about others, but one thing that has always bothered me
> > enormously is that it's hard to get an overview. Perhaps it would be
> > possible to list all connections at once in a tree view for example,
> > instead of forcing the user to open and close dialogs all the time. It
> > might even work to put some of the options in this tree view.
> > Or perhaps it would be better (as in more attainable) to just open
> > property sheets next to tree view instead of forcing the user to
> > navigate through multiple windows (first selecting the connection in
> > "Network Connections" and requesting its properties, then selecting the
> > desired item, click on properties, and then possibly even a click on
> > advanced).
> >
> > To illustrate my thoughts I've created a mock-up that shows a lay-out
> > that would at least be an improvement over the XP layout for me:
> > http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.png
> > For the mock-up source (Glade+Python, if anyone is interested in
> > expanding on this idea):
> > http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.zip
> >
> > You'll have to imagine the details like icons and so on, but it shows
> > the general idea of putting all the connections in one tree view, which
> > makes it easy to quickly navigate to the desired property page, to
> > switch between property pages (of different connections) to compare
> > settings and last but not least it avoids screen clutter! (try
> > navigating to the list of IP addresses under Windows, you'll have four
> > windows open!!!)
> >
> > There would definitely be some details to fill-in. Like what to do when
> > navigating to a different property page when the current one has been
> > modified but not yet applied? But these issues should be possible to
> > resolve, either by looking at what other people do or (when lacking
> > satisfactory examples) by devising new solutions.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
> > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >     
> >  
>
>   
>

[art yerkes]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:21:30 +0100
"Andrew \"Silver Blade\" Greenwood" <lists(a)silverblade.co.uk>
wrote:

>   I was going to create such a thing, but the general
> concensus in IRC at 
>  least appeared to be that we shouldn't have a "quick hack" and should 
>  focus on the final product already. 
These are the general principles I've been guided by so far in the net
implementation:

1) Do stuff that works.
2) Try to figure out the actual interfaces.
3) Allow hacks when they're easy to back out.

-- 
Here's a simple experiment. Stand on a train track between two locomotives
which are pushing on you with equal force in opposite directions. You will
exhibit no net motion. None the less, you may soon begin to notice that
something important is happening.
-- Robert Stirniman

[Swiss Cheeseman]

Jasper van de Gronde wrote:

>   Andrew "Silver Blade" Greenwood wrote:
>
> >   ...
> >
> >  Can you come up with a design? 
>
>  I don't know about others, but one thing that has always bothered me 
>  enormously is that it's hard to get an overview. Perhaps it would be 
>  possible to list all connections at once in a tree view for example, 
>  instead of forcing the user to open and close dialogs all the time. It 
>  might even work to put some of the options in this tree view.
>  Or perhaps it would be better (as in more attainable) to just open 
>  property sheets next to tree view instead of forcing the user to 
>  navigate through multiple windows (first selecting the connection in 
>  "Network Connections" and requesting its properties, then selecting 
>  the desired item, click on properties, and then possibly even a click 
>  on advanced).
>
>  To illustrate my thoughts I've created a mock-up that shows a lay-out 
>  that would at least be an improvement over the XP layout for me:
>  http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.png
>  For the mock-up source (Glade+Python, if anyone is interested in 
>  expanding on this idea):
>  http://home.hccnet.nl/th.v.d.gronde/networkconnection.zip
>
>  You'll have to imagine the details like icons and so on, but it shows 
>  the general idea of putting all the connections in one tree view, 
>  which makes it easy to quickly navigate to the desired property page, 
>  to switch between property pages (of different connections) to compare 
>  settings and last but not least it avoids screen clutter! (try 
>  navigating to the list of IP addresses under Windows, you'll have four 
>  windows open!!!)
>
>  There would definitely be some details to fill-in. Like what to do 
>  when navigating to a different property page when the current one has 
>  been modified but not yet applied? But these issues should be possible 
>  to resolve, either by looking at what other people do or (when lacking 
>  satisfactory examples) by devising new solutions.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>  
As a network admin, I love that design. In general, I also love it. 
Having a tree view instead of tabs would be wonderful for most parts of 
the reactos UI.