Alex:
Here are some brief comments on the GUI interface:
1. Include an "New" or "Add" (i.e. = File > Add backup) button on your toobar for creating new tasks. I suggest "New" as
that, IMHO, "seems" intuitively slightly more specific/definitive/descriptive/clear than "Add".
2. Animate the tray icon during actual file backup activity - successive colorization of the icon bars to suggest movement?
3. File > Add backup > More.. > View/Modify: relocate the "Add filter" box above the "Filters" box. Currently, these seem
intuitively presented in reverse order - FWIW...
4. Also for item #3 above: rename the "Filters" box to "Order filters".
Looking forward to next iteration...
galileo
Here are some brief comments on the GUI interface:
1. Include an "New" or "Add" (i.e. = File > Add backup) button on your toobar for creating new tasks. I suggest "New" as
that, IMHO, "seems" intuitively slightly more specific/definitive/descriptive/clear than "Add".
2. Animate the tray icon during actual file backup activity - successive colorization of the icon bars to suggest movement?
3. File > Add backup > More.. > View/Modify: relocate the "Add filter" box above the "Filters" box. Currently, these seem
intuitively presented in reverse order - FWIW...
4. Also for item #3 above: rename the "Filters" box to "Order filters".
Looking forward to next iteration...
galileo
> 1. Include an "New" or "Add" (i.e. = File > Add backup) button on your toobar for creating new tasks.
I hear you, been there and wanted that :) In fact the "Add" button was there in the toolbar in earlier versions, and then I removed it. The reason being is that it is not used during normal day to day operation, so it is a shortcut for an infrequent function. I am still on the fence with regards to whether to have the button or not, though not having it seems more consistent with the minimalistic UI approach.
> I suggest "New" as that, IMHO, "seems" intuitively slightly more specific/definitive/descriptive/clear than "Add".
Yes, I agree.
> 2. Animate the tray icon during actual file backup activity - successive colorization of the icon bars to suggest movement?
I will try to get this in.
> 3. File > Add backup > More.. > View/Modify: relocate the "Add filter" box above the "Filters" box. Currently, these seem intuitively presented in reverse order - FWIW...
Right, good point. The whole window is going to be revamped before the end of the beta. It looks and feels way too heavy on information and somewhat unintuitive.
By the way, do you find the way file filtering works easy to understand ? Specifically, the splitting of the path into Location and Name. I had some doubts if that's a bit too generic and if a set of simpler, more specialized filtering options would be better. I.e. one option to include all and exclude specific files, another - to include only specific files, yet another - to include files by mask, etc...
> 4. Also for item #3 above: rename the "Filters" box to "Order filters".
Accepted, thanks.
I took another look at the filtering per your question regarding the intuitiveness of the file filtering dialogs. Not to be critical but, I think that the commentary in the dialog box is a bit confusing. It doesn't seem to be obvious what the description of the "two parts" is referring to. The illustration that is given (i.e. "C:\Users\Columbus\Documents\Photos\Sample.jpg") has a "guidance" line below it (i.e. Source Directory - Location - Name) that is unreadable on my screen - either the font color is nearly the same as the dialog box background color or, the text is in fact "disabled" in your dialog box coding. This line undoubtedly was intended to illustrate what you were talking about in the first part of the explanation..not seeing it does make the interpretation more difficult. But, that is not the real source of confusion.
The process of creating filters here still seems less intuitive than I would have expected. Try this thought: When one reaches this dialog box one will have already selected the source path of the backup per the "Foders" selection in the "New backup" dialog box. Thus, one should only be concerned with subfolders and files within/below that path. So, lets start with simply identifying (i.e. stating) that path and then offering action options only below that path. So, to start with, the "Add filters" dialog box should show the source path - by itself in order to drive home the point that this is what we are now working with/within/below.
Interestingly enough, when attempting to establish a filter, I intuitively/subconciously, was "expecting" another file/folder selection dialog box (i.e. another square "selection" button as in the original source and destination folders dialog). I was subconciously anticipating that one would open a file dialog box and select one (or more via CTRL+) "Folders/Files to exclude/include" and that those folders would then be entered/added to the "Order filters" list. And, that one would have a separate second option for "File name/extensions to exclude/include" wherein one would enter the file name pattern (i.e. photo*.jpg or photo*.* or etc.) and that would then appear in the "Order filters" list. This would seem, IMHO, more "classical" and probably be what most users would grasp without extra explanatory commentary.
One last comment: Making a source path selection would seem to imply that "everything" in that path would then be "included" in the backup. Exclusions from that path would seem to be an understandable concept for the filtering dialogs. However, "Inclusions" into that path would seem, at first blush, to be unecessay since everything in the entire source path was by default included. Some simple clarification/illustration/examples as to the intended effect/purpose/usage of inclusions vis-a-vis filters and filter ordering would be desirable...I believe that would also help illustrate that the pathing can be made quite granular via coupling filters and ordering.
Thanks for offering the opportunity to have some input into your development!!!
galileo
The process of creating filters here still seems less intuitive than I would have expected. Try this thought: When one reaches this dialog box one will have already selected the source path of the backup per the "Foders" selection in the "New backup" dialog box. Thus, one should only be concerned with subfolders and files within/below that path. So, lets start with simply identifying (i.e. stating) that path and then offering action options only below that path. So, to start with, the "Add filters" dialog box should show the source path - by itself in order to drive home the point that this is what we are now working with/within/below.
Interestingly enough, when attempting to establish a filter, I intuitively/subconciously, was "expecting" another file/folder selection dialog box (i.e. another square "selection" button as in the original source and destination folders dialog). I was subconciously anticipating that one would open a file dialog box and select one (or more via CTRL+) "Folders/Files to exclude/include" and that those folders would then be entered/added to the "Order filters" list. And, that one would have a separate second option for "File name/extensions to exclude/include" wherein one would enter the file name pattern (i.e. photo*.jpg or photo*.* or etc.) and that would then appear in the "Order filters" list. This would seem, IMHO, more "classical" and probably be what most users would grasp without extra explanatory commentary.
One last comment: Making a source path selection would seem to imply that "everything" in that path would then be "included" in the backup. Exclusions from that path would seem to be an understandable concept for the filtering dialogs. However, "Inclusions" into that path would seem, at first blush, to be unecessay since everything in the entire source path was by default included. Some simple clarification/illustration/examples as to the intended effect/purpose/usage of inclusions vis-a-vis filters and filter ordering would be desirable...I believe that would also help illustrate that the pathing can be made quite granular via coupling filters and ordering.
Thanks for offering the opportunity to have some input into your development!!!
galileo
> The process of creating filters here still seems less intuitive than I would have expected.
I completely agree, just wanted to confirm that. That is why there is a BETA sticker in the corner :-)
Initially I had just an Explorer-style view that simply listed folders and file, each of which could be double-clicked on to toggle its inclusion status:
Then I thought that selecting files by mask would be nice to have. Added that. Slept on it and thought that selecting folders by mask could be useful too. Added that. At this point the dialog was already twice the size and as confusing as your average Windows application. It was also a time for a beta release, so I ended up scraping the Explorer view and making a temporary plug that is there at the moment.
> Interestingly enough, when attempting to establish a filter, I intuitively/subconciously, was "expecting" another file/folder selection dialog box ... [snip]
This is excellent. This is the feedback, thanks a lot !
> Thanks for offering the opportunity to have some input into your development!!!
My pleasure, please keep it coming :-)
Your original "Backup files" dialog box was pretty understandable but, left out the file/folder masks which, and I agree completely with you, are important. Particlularly for developing a granular backup set definition. That original dialog box presents the entire file structure within the source path - that makes the box too large and basically is similar to the built-in Windows Backup dialog interaction philosophy...which I believe overwhelms many users by showing the entire folder path/contents. Yes, I would think at first blush that toggling off those items that you don't want seems clear. But, I believe that using a button to initiate the file selection dialog (similar to selecting your source path) would keep the overall dialog box smaller, clearer, and probably more "expected". Most users are familiar with the process of selecting a file through opening a dialog box...thus, that approach stays well within their comfort zone.
The more I ponder your current filtering dialog, the more I think that you are very close to a good approach. Again, your deminimus strategy is wonderful, but needs just a bit of work at this particular place. I can appreciate your attempt to "house" all of the filtering setup in a really small set of textboxes and drop down choices. I believe that just a bit of tweaking will make the process intuitive enough to be clear to users - and comfortable for even those who are less experienced.
A possible thought for the "Add/Create Filters":
1. State the backup "Source" path in the beginning of the box - at the very top of the overall dialog box. The idea being to
make crystal clear that what one is doing is "tuning" the "Source" definition.
2. For the "Location" provide a button to open a file dialog box (rooted at the "Source" level) to drill down to and select folders
and files within/under the "Source" path. The user's selection would fill in the "Location" textbox with the folder selection and
would fill in the "Name" textbox with the file selection if one is selected - and would disable (gray out) the name textbox if
one is not selected (i.e. only a folder selection was made by the user). This would I believe address the filling in of the
Location textbox which now requires one to "know" from memory the path to type into it. I would favor giving the user a
dialog box to work with - in which the folder and/or file can be viewed/seen/selected visually rather than from memory. I
believe that this is more intuitively "expected" particularly given my own initial reaction when attempting to grasp the filter
creation.
3. If one selects a file or files in #2 above, then the filter mask boxes are disabled...since the file selection would have obviated
masking any extension.
4. If one selects a folder in #2 above, then the filter mask boxes are enabled to allow/permit further granularization of the
folder choice.
The exclude/include selection methodology is somewhat difficult to comment on without knowing what the form of the above would finally take. Perhaps two final buttons: "Exclude" and "Include" to execute the addition of the filtering set. This would, again IMO, be a bit more intuitive than a drop down box.
I must comment that the "Include" feature will, IMHO, be a difficult concept to get across to all but the more experienced users. It will require some careful explanation by example for many users to grasp how one employs an inclusion - given that the initial souce selection by default includes everything and then given that one is typically excluding from the source definition. I suspect that there is considerable opportunity for the creation of incorrect or redundant filter sets and that considerable error trapping code will be required....just my guess...
BTW: how does one insert a screen grab on this forum...?
galileo
The more I ponder your current filtering dialog, the more I think that you are very close to a good approach. Again, your deminimus strategy is wonderful, but needs just a bit of work at this particular place. I can appreciate your attempt to "house" all of the filtering setup in a really small set of textboxes and drop down choices. I believe that just a bit of tweaking will make the process intuitive enough to be clear to users - and comfortable for even those who are less experienced.
A possible thought for the "Add/Create Filters":
1. State the backup "Source" path in the beginning of the box - at the very top of the overall dialog box. The idea being to
make crystal clear that what one is doing is "tuning" the "Source" definition.
2. For the "Location" provide a button to open a file dialog box (rooted at the "Source" level) to drill down to and select folders
and files within/under the "Source" path. The user's selection would fill in the "Location" textbox with the folder selection and
would fill in the "Name" textbox with the file selection if one is selected - and would disable (gray out) the name textbox if
one is not selected (i.e. only a folder selection was made by the user). This would I believe address the filling in of the
Location textbox which now requires one to "know" from memory the path to type into it. I would favor giving the user a
dialog box to work with - in which the folder and/or file can be viewed/seen/selected visually rather than from memory. I
believe that this is more intuitively "expected" particularly given my own initial reaction when attempting to grasp the filter
creation.
3. If one selects a file or files in #2 above, then the filter mask boxes are disabled...since the file selection would have obviated
masking any extension.
4. If one selects a folder in #2 above, then the filter mask boxes are enabled to allow/permit further granularization of the
folder choice.
The exclude/include selection methodology is somewhat difficult to comment on without knowing what the form of the above would finally take. Perhaps two final buttons: "Exclude" and "Include" to execute the addition of the filtering set. This would, again IMO, be a bit more intuitive than a drop down box.
I must comment that the "Include" feature will, IMHO, be a difficult concept to get across to all but the more experienced users. It will require some careful explanation by example for many users to grasp how one employs an inclusion - given that the initial souce selection by default includes everything and then given that one is typically excluding from the source definition. I suspect that there is considerable opportunity for the creation of incorrect or redundant filter sets and that considerable error trapping code will be required....just my guess...
BTW: how does one insert a screen grab on this forum...?
galileo
Just a quick note on the BTW part.
I have enabled "attachments". There should be an Attach link underneath each post that you own. Click on it, select the file, upload it, copy-paste attachment's URL into the message and wrap it into [img][/img] tags.
In other words - type and post the message first, upload the image second, and then edit the message to link to the image. A bit of a hassle, but apparently this is by design to divorce posting and uploading (as uploading is more susceptible to the transmission problems).
> BTW: how does one insert a screen grab on this forum...?
I have enabled "attachments". There should be an Attach link underneath each post that you own. Click on it, select the file, upload it, copy-paste attachment's URL into the message and wrap it into [img][/img] tags.
In other words - type and post the message first, upload the image second, and then edit the message to link to the image. A bit of a hassle, but apparently this is by design to divorce posting and uploading (as uploading is more susceptible to the transmission problems).
Any further comments on direction...?
Still typing the reply. For every your idea I seem to have few comments and several ideas of mine. Takes a while to type and sketch it all in concise manner :-) Bear with me.
Version 326 seems to have cured the recent crashing issue...I will push it a bit harder to see if something breaks.
A further interface thought:
While a backup task was running this morning, I needed access to email and noticed that the machine was not very responsive. This is not surprising due to the size of several of the files being copied across the network. However, I found myself looking for a "Pause" button...almost intuitively expecting that there would be some capability to pause and then resume the backup operation in order to allow access to the machine - but, without stopping/killing the scheduled backup operation. Interestingly, I found myself at odds with the minimalist interface philosophy. However, despite the minimalist goal, I think that adding a "Pause/Resume" toggle button/feature would be useful and justifiable even though it is "nibbling" somewhat at the deminimus approach (i.e. a button to the right of the "Stop" that would only be "enabled" when a backup was in progress and would toggle between "Pause" and "Resume" when clicked).
...just one more thought for the oven...
galileo
A further interface thought:
While a backup task was running this morning, I needed access to email and noticed that the machine was not very responsive. This is not surprising due to the size of several of the files being copied across the network. However, I found myself looking for a "Pause" button...almost intuitively expecting that there would be some capability to pause and then resume the backup operation in order to allow access to the machine - but, without stopping/killing the scheduled backup operation. Interestingly, I found myself at odds with the minimalist interface philosophy. However, despite the minimalist goal, I think that adding a "Pause/Resume" toggle button/feature would be useful and justifiable even though it is "nibbling" somewhat at the deminimus approach (i.e. a button to the right of the "Stop" that would only be "enabled" when a backup was in progress and would toggle between "Pause" and "Resume" when clicked).
...just one more thought for the oven...
galileo
> .. the machine was not very responsive
I will lower the default priority of the backup thread. It was long due.
> I found myself looking for a "Pause" button
Interesting timing ... I was wishing for the exact same feature not just a day ago.
> Interestingly, I found myself at odds with the minimalist interface philosophy.
This one is simple to solve. The Stop button will act as a Pause and the Go button - as a Resume :)
OK, all done, tested and will be a part of the next release.
>> This one is simple to solve. The Stop button will act as a Pause and the Go button - as a Resume :)
Good solution...but, let's say one really does want to "Stop" (i.e. Cancel) the backup operation rather than "Pause" it...how would that be addressed...?
Ah...a thought: If one presses the "Stop/Pause" button, then present a simple 3 button dialog box which asks "Do you want to Cancel or Pause the backup operation or Dismiss this dialog box". That would effectively keep the interface at its current model.
I am really looking forward to the VSS capability being completed...backing up open Outlook *.pst files (which tend to be large) currently generates errors. In a business environment, one's email application is pretty much left running 24/7. And, those files contain "Mission Critical" data...!!!
galileo
> Good solution...but, let's say one really does want to "Stop" (i.e. Cancel) the backup operation rather than "Pause" it...how would that be addressed...?
Similarly to how now the first click on Stop cancels the running backup, and the second click disables it. With Pause in the picture, first click will pause the running job, second will Cancel it, and the third will disable.
Both buttons effectively move the backup job between its 4 states - disabled, normal, paused and running/pending - one in one direction, and the other in reverse. If that makes any sense at all :)
> I am really looking forward to the VSS capability being completed
I hear you, working on it and it should be in the next release (pending any emergency fixes as with .326)
> Similarly to how now the first click on Stop
Got it...I forgot the approach to multiple usage of the Stop button...makes perfect sense now
> I hear you, working on it and it should be in the next release...
Sounds good
(another idea for the filter configuration, just xref'ing from here)
Alex:
Just a "Hooooorah" comment....I really really like the look and feel of the program. It comes across as a professionally done app which in itself gives the user a "sense" that this is a "good" tool. Also, your update mechanism behaves exactly the way an update mechanism should behave - to wit: inform the user that an update is available; offer to install or not; and then install completely and notify the user of completion....nice, clean, and no excessive dialogs or other messages...I love it!
BTW: I encountered the timestamping (and many other "Faiiled to get.....") issues with v349 as some other folks did - I am using XP not 7. I executed the update to v353..and manually relocated the exe...no problems so far.
(...now gimme my VSS....LOL...)
galileo
Just a "Hooooorah" comment....I really really like the look and feel of the program. It comes across as a professionally done app which in itself gives the user a "sense" that this is a "good" tool. Also, your update mechanism behaves exactly the way an update mechanism should behave - to wit: inform the user that an update is available; offer to install or not; and then install completely and notify the user of completion....nice, clean, and no excessive dialogs or other messages...I love it!
BTW: I encountered the timestamping (and many other "Faiiled to get.....") issues with v349 as some other folks did - I am using XP not 7. I executed the update to v353..and manually relocated the exe...no problems so far.
(...now gimme my VSS....LOL...)
galileo