Thursday, November 18, 2010

Round 4

So it's down to two competing ideas. At this point my brain is shot and I can't really decide between them. So I've decided to put them up here and see what people think. The best way to compare the two is right-click the images into separate tabs and switch between them a few times. Take a good hard look at each one.

What I'm looking for here is clarity of ideas, not cosmetic considerations like alignment and balance. That is, which of these dialogs is easier to understand?



Now that you've done that, does anything seem to be missing from either one that would make it an improvement over the other?


Daniel Díaz said...

I'd go for B.

Presenting squared vs. rectangular pixels upfront can be confusing if the concept is unknown. In option B, however, more can be deducted when toying with the first options.

An updated "Pixel aspect ratio: ____" on every change can also help understand the implications of fiddling with the frame or display geometry, like option A shows.

Arun Raghavan said...

B makes more sense to me.

Is it easy to add some help text to help newbies make a decision or stick with the default?

Anonymous said...

I think both are nice, but having the option to specify the display aspect ratio directly in terms of "16:9" and not in pixels is needed; for example, my camcorder saves MPEG2 and the original image is 16:9 but right now I cannot use PiTiVi because it cannot save in 16:9.

Dan Dennedy said...

I vote B.
Other things you might need (now or down-the-road): scan mode (progressive, interlace top-field-first, interlace bottom-field-first) and colorspace (ITU Rec. 601, ITU Rec. 709, etc.)

Brian said...

I like the 5th revision, I don't know why. It just looks cleaner to me.

Anonymous said...

Definitely B and would it be too much to add a video format option in there? It would make it a lot easier for a user to select that along with the res settings in the same menu.

Jean-François said...

My hunch is to vote for B (note: I didn't look at the comments beforehand).

Now, on further observation, I think B is definitely a bit clearer:
- less columns/more natural flow
- it doesn't seem to "force" you to care about "pixel shape"; I think I understand it, but as a user I don't *want* to care about it. Mockup B seems to allow a less technical workflow: you set the resolution and maybe set global display aspect ratio and you're done (1-2 steps). With mockup A, it feels like more steps.

Might be just a trick being played on my mind though.

Yagraph said...

I vote for B too !

most of the time, even someone who is confident with video editing do not knew anything about pixel ratios.
We think with Size and aspect ratio, and pixels ratio follows.

Thanks for your work !

tn said...

My suggestion is to create a kind of simplified combination of both:

Size (Pixels)
[720 ] x [576 ]
[] Constrain aspect ratio

Aspect Ratio
O Auto (Square pixels) . . 4:3
O Custom . . . . . . . . . . . [Standard (4:3) V]

Or alternatively make it even simpler by removing radio button selection and making "Auto / square pixels" one item (and default) in aspect ratio dropdown:

Size (Pixels)
[720 ] x [576 ]
[] Constrain aspect ratio

Aspect Ratio
[Auto (square pixels) V] . . [4:3 ]

RayBlender said...

I have to agree with most others, B makes the most sense for someone that just wants to enter information that is displayed either on the camera or in a videoplayer.

EgoLayer13 said...

Like most others here, I'm for option B. It might seem a little more verbose, but I think it leads to a better overall understanding of what the user is actually doing.