82 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Hmmm, You'd be about the only Mac user I've heard of that still uses a
single button mouse... I'm surprised they still ship them with the
machines :(


nah..this was an older model..so, I don't know what they are shipping now..

0
Comment actions Permalink

jjooee <jjooeeN_0_S_P_A_M@machak.com> wrote:

nah..this was an older model..so, I don't know what they are shipping now..


They still have just one button. But they connect via Bluetooth now. I
use a standard Microsoft wheel mouse.... I like their keyboards though.

Dirk Dittert

0
Comment actions Permalink

What font are you using? Is it Mac-only, or can I get it for W2k?

0
Comment actions Permalink

hm..looks close to Lucida Sans Typewriter
see attachment (next message)

0
Comment actions Permalink

Not only is it out of place, we now have "configure project" and "project
properties", both which would seem to want to be grouped together...


This is not the final solution. BTW, any suggestions are welcome :)

--

Best regards,
Eugene Zhuravlev
JetBrains, Inc, http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


0
Comment actions Permalink

Could you please describe what in particular did you find unintuitive? Any thoughts about how it should work in your opinion?

--

Best regards,
Eugene Zhuravlev
JetBrains, Inc, http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Jordan Zimmerman" <jordanz@altura.com> wrote in message news:bp3kj9$c86$1@is.intellij.net...

I respectfully disagree. I find it jarring and unintuitive. The UI should
match the rest of the application.

>

--
Jordan Zimmerman
http://www.jordanzimmerman.com

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Sakke Wiik <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote:

What font are you using? Is it Mac-only, or can I get it for W2k?


No, it's not Lucida Typewriter. It's Bitstream Vera Sans Mono -- a TTF
in my user font folder. I guess it's a remnant of my Windows/Linux past.
It's a lot nicer

The user interface font is Gill Sans.

Dirk Dittert

0
Comment actions Permalink

I just installed that font yesterday, its wonderful for IDEA. You can get it here:
http://www.gnome.org/fonts/

0
Comment actions Permalink

I thought the new modules section was a step in the right direction (and a much welcome addition).

Since I had some time before work this morning, and I felt like playing around a bit in Photoshop, I took a few minutes to mock up what I thought would be the proper place and look for it. What is that old saying? Pictures are worth a thousand words? ;)

Just a suggestion, one of many I am sure...



Attachment(s):
idea-module-mock.png
0
Comment actions Permalink

Well, the colors and decorations are nice but I wonder why people are so fond of an UI that looks like a Web page ??

0
Comment actions Permalink

exactly, why the web look and feel? it doesn't fit in at all.

0
Comment actions Permalink

.... especially because web pages are known to be (much) less
user-friendly than "classical" user interfaces of desktop applications.

Tom

0
Comment actions Permalink


"Robert Sauer" <dave.loper@web.de> wrote in message
news:21781480.1068843616259.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

topic tells the story .. thank you very much

>

now I just have to work with it a bit


I wanted to write a whole big report about Modules UI, but because I have
not yet, I just say that I... well, I do not want to use "hate" word, so...
I really, really, really do not like the new IU ideas in IDEA. Well, I hate
standard kiddy-candy WinXP interface as well so you may consider me to be an
old fart. But it is not only the colors, but the whole dialog in very
unintuitive.

Where one can find a primer about Project / Entry / Module / Library / etc.
?


0
Comment actions Permalink

In article <13328220.1068917962255.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Dirk Dittert <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote:

Have you seen IDEA on OS X yet? It looks absolutely sweet.


Well... I think it looks worse than every other Mac OS X app I've ever
seen. It looks better than IDEA on Windows, though :)

Maybe when JetBrains gets their new Mac they can tweak the UI to look
more like a Mac application. I'm sure there are a lot of people here who
would be happy to answer any questions about how a Mac program should
look and act...

0
Comment actions Permalink

I must agree with all the negative comments I've read here. I thought the previous UI was a big improvement over the one that preceded it - it was more attractive and offered a clear interface for adding/removing libraries, attaching/removing jars from libraries, etc.

I know this is a first pass, but I'm not sure what problems were being addressed. Were there a lot of complaints about the old l&f, or is this an example of the future direction for the whole UI? Either answer would scare me, but if it's the latter, I might be scared so far into finally downloading Eclipse. :)

Anyway, there are some functional issues as well as the overall ugliness. I've attached a couple of screenshots (sorry about the format, I'm a bit limited in terms of image processing here at work).

It seems that my project's classpaths are alright after upgrading to 977, but the screen shot of module1 only has four]]> entries on it, despite the fact that there are probably a dozen or more in the project. I don't see how to separate jars out into separate library groups like before (even though they show up on the Order pane as you can see in module2.bmp).

And somehow, I've got a source location showing up in my libraries (the resources directory).

I know it's the first release of this UI, so bugs don't surprise or worry me, but the fact that it seems like it's regressed back to a flat library structure instead of the much cleaner libraries with attached classes bothers me a lot.

So what was the reasoning for changing the l&f? Was it in response to user comments/complaints, or is it something else?



Attachment(s):
modules1.bmp
modules2.bmp
0
Comment actions Permalink

Well, after looking at it a bit more closely, I at least figured out why I've only got four entries in the Module Libraries - it's grabbing the first jar from the two library groups (sorry, don't know the right term for those) that had existed in my project before.

I really don't like that it's gotten flattened out again so that I can't separate libraries of different types (in my case, I had them separated by those required just for building, and those required for running/deployment). That would be my biggest complaint.

0
Comment actions Permalink

D'oh! Well, I should have played with the new UI a bit longer before posting earlier. I was quite mistaken about the flattening out (I mistook the fact that my project libraries didn't import into this first version correctly as a sign that they weren't supported). Of course I can still group my libraries together quite nicely.

I still hate the l&f - I liked the old ui a lot better - but at least all the functionality seems to be intact.

Again, very sorry for posting too quickly.

My one question does remain: was the change spurred by user comments/complaints or is this just the new UI direction?

0
Comment actions Permalink

I have spent a few minutes looking at the new UI, and I am finding it to be completely baffling.

I can't understand the metaphor here at all! The old project configuration was superb, why break it just to add module support?

Besides the usability issues, the "bubbly" UI components are ugly and waste screen space. Let's go back to the clean looking UI.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I agree! Not usuable and headache-inducing! :)

0
Comment actions Permalink

Not only is it out of place, we now have "configure

project" and "project

properties", both which would seem to want to be

grouped together...


YES! It took me 5 minutes to find where I could set up the paths for my project!


This is not the final solution. BTW, any suggestions
are welcome :)


Why not keep it where it used to be in the project properties dialog? At least, keep the project-specific part there.
What is confusing now is that you can have several different levels of setups some that pertain only to the project while others might also influence other projects. Because of this, I understand the motivation for moving the module stuff out of the project properties but setting up paths for a project is still very much project-specific and users shouldn't have to hunt this down. It's especially confusing for old IDEA users like me... :)

Hope this helps.

-Chris

0
Comment actions Permalink

Richard Porter wrote:

D'oh! Well, I should have played with the new UI a bit longer before
posting earlier. I was quite mistaken about the flattening out (I mistook
the fact that my project libraries didn't import into this first version
correctly as a sign that they weren't supported). Of course I can still
group my libraries together quite nicely.


Were they not? Please file an SCR (preferably packed with your old IDEA
configs)


I still hate the l&f - I liked the old ui a lot better - but at least all
the functionality seems to be intact.

My one question does remain: was the change spurred by user
comments/complaints or is this just the new UI direction?


Well, both. Functionality in many respects comes from user comments, but L&F
is due to us.

Friendly,
Dmitry

--
Dmitry Lomov
IntelliJ Labs / JetBrains Inc.
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0
Comment actions Permalink

Hey, that looks pretty nice! Also fits in nicely with the IDEA look and feel.

Patrik

0
Comment actions Permalink

Paths page: Its ok for me and more intuitve than in former Aurora Builds. The blue color for source folder is better than the small dot, because it highlights the source folders better.

Library page:
Unintuitve: Different ways to configure module libs, project libs and applications libs. Apparently no way to remove a project library. I would prefer a tab based UI with tabs for each: Module, Project and Application libs. The sense of the "bubbles" become clear only if you add sources or docs to the libs, which you can see than within the bubble. This idea isn't bad, however, if you could find a look & feel that covers less space and makes the path of the library completely visible always, that would be a great improvement.

No comments about dependencies and order, because I haven't used them so far.

Best regards

Thomas Gülden
Munich, Germany

0
Comment actions Permalink

I am not really sure whether the old or the new UI is better. The most
important thing in my opinion is, that we need a SINGLE PLACE to
configure everything about the modules.

At the moment it is somehow spread all over the IDE:

1) File Menu -> Configure Project
2) Project pane -> J2EE tab
3) The old web integration

You can create web/ejb/app modules on the J2EE tab of the project pane
only. You can later edit some settings on the new "configure project"
dialog. Some of the web/ejb module settings cannot be edited once the
wizard has finished. At least I didn't figure out how to edit web roots,
etc. later.

In addition to this there are still bugs reported here and in the tracker.

With all this it seems that the release date "probably at the end of
November" that was mentioned some time ago will not become reality.

I have been wondering why such a basic feature like modules
configuration was introduced that late in EAP and other features like UI
designer, AspectJ, Generics have been pushed so much. I remember
postings some time ago mentioning that only the UIs were still missing
but the current state of the configuration makes me wonder if the whole
concept is still under heavy development.

I hope that I am wrong, but it seems to me that we are still quite far
from getting the modules configuration done.

Michael

Chris Laprun wrote:
>>>Not only is it out of place, we now have "configure
>>
>>project" and "project
>>
>>>properties", both which would seem to want to be
>>
>>grouped together...


YES! It took me 5 minutes to find where I could set up the paths for my project!

>>This is not the final solution. BTW, any suggestions
>>are welcome :)


Why not keep it where it used to be in the project properties dialog? At least, keep the project-specific part there.
What is confusing now is that you can have several different levels of setups some that pertain only to the project while others might also influence other projects. Because of this, I understand the motivation for moving the module stuff out of the project properties but setting up paths for a project is still very much project-specific and users shouldn't have to hunt this down. It's especially confusing for old IDEA users like me... :)

Hope this helps.

-Chris


0
Comment actions Permalink

I'm definitely going to disagree with this on OSX.

This is just confused as hell. I spent 5 minutes trying to figure out why the library configuration wasn't where I thought it was in the last release. I don't disagree with what you're trying to do to make it easier to use, but this should remain on the project properties pane. Embed this pane back in project properties where it was. If I'm bring up Project Properties, why can't I actually get to project properties? Its like its a joke feature 'he he, find me now'.

Now onto the next thing. I have no idea what you guys mean by modules and I don't care. All I end up doing is going into application libraries and adding new libraries and checking what I need here in the application libraries section. Why is this section so colorful BTW? Its out of place with the rest of the IDE.

Further I don't understand the concept of module libraries. After I've gone through all the trouble to gather all of the libraries I use into Application Libraries (as makes sense, takes into account source, libs and doc) you then ask me to add libraries under module libraries which don't include these collections? Okay, so modules are out of my vocabulary with respect to Idea now - they make no sense to me.

Next is project libraries. There isn't even an Edit button here. What's the different between Project libraries and Application libraries?

There are obviously some terminology problems all throughout this interface: application, project, module, content entries, etc. I think you guys need to come up with one set of unified terminology. When I create a new PROJECT (according to the menu in File), what's up with modules? When do I create them? Why is my source considered module source since I never created a module. If what you're trying to do is have a Project which contains Modules the UI does a terrible job at expressing these concepts when creating a new project or when it converts an old one. (and if so you need to get rid of the word application from the configuration dialogs).

And get rid of the crayola colors. If you want to do that for the XP L&F that's fine, but its very out of place in the OSX version IMO as is the whole Configure Project Properties (which is apparently configure module properties and application properties) dialog.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Is it me, or Windows, or Java font handling, or IDEA, or simply badly
implemented fonts, that this Bitstream Vera Sans Mono as well as Profont
look really bad without antialiasing? I never had antialiasing turned on
with standard Courier Sans on my Win2000, and it looks nice and round.
Antialiasing do not work for me, it makes text less crisp.

Any suggestions?

"peter royal" <peter.royal@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:20776733.1069074045903.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I just installed that font yesterday, its wonderful for IDEA. You can get

it here:

http://www.gnome.org/fonts/



0
Comment actions Permalink

I disagree to an extent as many others. This post will probably be drowned in the masses but I want to convey my point of view anyways.

I do think that this look is much too different from the rest of IDEA. Unlike some posts here that I've seen, I don't dislike the look... I just don't like it when the rest of IDEA looks so different.

There is one major usability issue bothering me though and that is that I'm not able to modify libraries. When I've added a library (complete with source jars and doc jars) I have no way of modifying these paths. I have to remove the whole library and re-add it! I would like to be able to select an ellipses button (...) and get a file chooser dialog where the current file is selected. There I could select a different jar file, quick and painless.

Another thing is that I would like to have the ability to select a directory and include all it's jar files as a library. This would need to support src jar files as well (I put my libraries in a lib/ directory and my source jar files in lib/src/ so I would like to be able to select different directories for library jar files and source jar files). IDEA should optimally be able to get pointed to the lib directory with a "recurse into sub-directories" option and it should figure out by itself what jar files contain source code, which ones contain javadoc and which ones contain source files. It should be possible to have a library with one jar file that has at both .class files and .java files (and perhaps even javadoc as well?).

While I'm at it. As I understand, the quick javadoc is generated from the source files and it's not possible to view the javadoc in a browser for a specific class if the javadoc is jarred up (most browsers don't support that) so my question is: what exactly do you do with the javadoc jar file in the library definitions?

Well, that's enough for now. I hope someone reads this post and is able to answer these (erradical) questions.

Kind regards, Stefan Freyr.

0
Comment actions Permalink

And pleeease!

Make the default location when adding modules the project directory... not the last used directory in any project.

I have many projects that use similar libraries and I'm always adding a library to project B from the project directory of project A because I just modified the libraries for project A before!

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.