nifi-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Petronic <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
Date Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:19:38 GMT
I see your point. Well, consider my thoughts just input to the larger
puzzle. Better to have well thought out UX than not. Nice to see you
thinking hard about it. :)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Matt Gilman <>

> I thought about that when I was writing my previous response. The concern
> there is the amount of 'clickable' space across each type of configurable
> component (not just processors) and how much precision would be required
> depending on the current scale of the canvas. Just don't want to make it
> more difficult by providing less real estate to click. But this wouldn't be
> a show stopper.
> However, we do already have double click mapped to Enter a Processor
> Group. So we wouldn't be able to use double click for configuring a Process
> Group. Not sure we want to introduce inconsistency in actions across the
> types of configurable components.
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Mark Petronic <>
> wrote:
>> Right now, when you move your mouse over the processor, that connection
>> handle icon appears. If you double click it, nothing really happens. So,
>> and this is just my thought, just keep that behavior the same and require
>> the double click to be NOT over that icon if you want to open the config
>> dialog. That 'seems' pretty natural and not a UX hack. Its like there are
>> two layers. Layer one is the processor and layer two is the dragable
>> connection handle on top of layer one. A user needs to at least know which
>> one of these the double click is targeted against and aim accordingly.
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not against the double click idea. However, my only
>>> concern/hesitation is around the behavior if the double click happens over
>>> the connection handle. A mouse down there initiates the begin of creating a
>>> connection by shifting the connection handle around your mouse (dragging
>>> thereafter the connection handle moves with your mouse). If we'd continued
>>> with this idea we'd likely need to make some changes around this behavior
>>> to avoid confusion.
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Mark Petronic <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> +1 for double-click and open config dialog on processors. Seems most
>>>> intuitive to a user.
>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Grande <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I just had the same idea today. Would like to have double-click open
>>>>> the Properties pane of a processor, this is the majority of use cases.
>>>>> I am against making the action customizable, though. This is a case
>>>>> where less is more for a UX and provides a consistent experience across
>>>>> deployments (just imaging if someone swapped start/stop and an operator
>>>>> expected a Props screen. Oops!)
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>> From: Charlie Frasure <>
>>>>> Reply-To: "" <>
>>>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
>>>>> To: "" <>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
>>>>> Apologies, not sure how to properly respond to an old thread.  (Maybe
>>>>> that's the idea.)  I was looking through the archives before posting
>>>>> usability comments about the UI and turned up a couple of threads in
>>>>> September.
>>>>> If we did automatically open the configuration screen when a processor
>>>>> was dropped on the canvas, a quick press of ESC seems to back out nicely.
>>>>> A possible compromise for the processor configuration could be a
>>>>> double-click to open behavior, as it seems this action is not currently
>>>>> assigned.  Better yet, a user-configurable double click action (start/stop,
>>>>> configure, data provenance, etc) would be nice.
>>>>> The other enhancements mentioned would be great as well.
>>>>> Rob Moran <> Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal:
>>>>> Streamline visual flow design Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:09:44 GMT
>>>>> So far there seems to be a couple in agreement to leave the add processor
>>>>> behavior as is. My use of *inconsistency* was referring the simple fact
>>>>> that behavior is different. Add a processor - no dialog; draw a connection
>>>>> - same type of dialog appears to take action. Perhaps we design a more
>>>>> intuitive way to quickly “configure” a connection when drawn. It
could be a
>>>>> small in-place editor <>
>>>>> appears when the connection is drawn allowing a quick, localized
>>>>> configuration to take place.

View raw message