Subject: Re: tools everywhere (was Daily Dose version 2 launched

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:44:02 -0400

--On Saturday, 03 November, 2007 14:34 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 2007-11-03 09:48, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> ...
>> why does "tools" have to show up in just about every IETF URL
>> these days? 
>...
>> 	www.ietf.org/id/submit
>> 	www.ietf.org/nomcom/feedback
> 
> ID submission isn't at the tools server, it's at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi
> (and seems to be broken for IPv6 access, but that's another
> issue)
> 
> However, the generic answer is that tools still supported by
> the
> volunteer team are linked off tools.ietf.org. As for progress
> in
> migrating those tools to Secretariat support, thereby linking
> them off www.ietf.org, I'm out of that loop.

Brian,

Ultimately, this is a key part of the problem.  We have tools
migrating from volunteer custody to secretariat support.  We
have the secretariat changing its mind about where to put
things.   We can quibble about domain names (Scott's point is
probably valid although I question its importance), but what is
key is not having to do a lot of navigation, involving loading
and examining multiple pages (_especially_ if those pages are
slow) to get to things that are in the critical path of doing
work.  

As someone pointed out, one could, in principle, eliminate the
need for a tools cross-reference page by keeping a collection of
bookmarks.  But bookmarks don't transport easily from one user
system to another (the long and sad history of IMSP and ACAP is
incorporated here by reference).  More important, a bookmark
solution implies that we need to put these facilities somewhere
and leave them there: having a bookmark fail such that one then
has to start a search and navigation process begins a
frustrating and unnecessary process, no matter how long it takes.

To me, the obvious simple solution to this is to keep one link
-- either as a bookmark or in my head -- that points to a list
of tools.  That one page, followed by a link that leads directly
to the tools, seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between
usability and stability.   Making it two pages, one of which is
slow and hard to navigate, seems excessive and unnecesary.  That
one page should load quickly and be free of visual confusion and
complexity (yes, I agree with Lyndon about that as well as about
the bookmarks).  And, while I can get used to remembering
http://tools.ietf.org/tools, it makes sense to do that only if
_it_ is stable, at least as stable as I assumed
http://tools.ietf.org/ was before, and that page stays clean.

       john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:50:31 +0100

John C Klensin wrote:

> of tools.

My solution is a collection of my favourite tools on a public 
page <http://purl.net/xyzzy/ietftool.htm>.  That turned out to
be a good idea after I lost all local data on my old OS/2 box.

Of course my collection won't help folks with other preferences,
or if I stop to update it, e.g. by adding a link to the new I-D
submission page.

 Frank

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:04:51 -0500

John C Klensin wrote:
>   what is

I suspect the current problem is due to an organizing approach that is based 
on convenience (and perspective) of the folks who maintain the pages, rather 
than for the convenience of the people using the pages. This is a common user 
interface design error, not in the least peculiar to the IETF.

Your phrasing the issue as "navigation" seems quite helpful.  It eliminates 
philosophical points, such as I'm raising in the previous paragraph, and 
provides a simple criteria:  Is it easy to get the desired information?

That's keyclicks, visual scan effort, and mnemonics.  Minimize the first two, 
and maximize the last.

d/

ps.  Your phrase "critical path" goes hits a relatively new user interface 
design paradigm, called "activity based design" where the user *sequence* is 
considered in terms of common goals for users.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net