Some observations on the new GUI

[biggsy]

Referring  to the images below

There seems to be a collision between the parameter title and the checkbox in the first image.
Maybe a wider space for the parameter title and less for the parameter would help. 
many parameter areas do seem excessively wide.

The numeric increment/decrement scroll seems to be a bit pointless.
Is anyone really going to scroll up/down rather than type most of the typical numbers? 
Would the scroll even be usable on a mobile platform?
Either way, it does seem that it's not applied consistently.

This one has always made me wonder.  Is it not just IP version 6, rather than TCP/IP?

Perhaps "Invert match" could be replaced with a choice between "Equal" and "Not equal"?
Maybe also place that choice between the selection of host/network/alias/etc and the value?

[phil.davis]

This one has always made me wonder.  Is it not just IP version 6, rather than TCP/IP?

Yes, correct. It is IP at layer 3, and IP only (v4 or v6) that is what it is. There are different layer 1 and layer 2 physical and data-link layers that IP can talk over. Various layer 4 and above protocols (TCP and UDP being the commonly-known 2) talk to IP at the routing layer 3.

Back in the early days (and still today) people referred to the whole thing (or the layer 3 component, or whatever they thought they meant or did not understand) as TCP/IP - actually it was TCP/IP and UDP/IP and xyz/IP…

Personally I thing it is confusing to label this field "TCP/IP Version" and then the next field is called "Protocol" and you can choose TCP or something else like UDP. So you select "TCP/IP Version IPv4" and then "Protocol UDP". That looks weird to me.

Note that this is not a 2.3 issue the text in 2.2.* says the same thing.

But I will vote for removing "TCP/" from that text and leaving just "IP Version".

[jimp]

If we're changing things I'd rather call IPv4/IPv6 choices "Address Family" consistently since that is how many other places refer to it (especially in routing), but "IP Version" also works.  Just so long as we don't say "IP Protocol" since it is redundant.

[heper]

@jimp:

If we're changing things I'd rather call IPv4/IPv6 choices "Address Family" consistently since that is how many other places refer to it (especially in routing), but "IP Version" also works.  Just so long as we don't say "IP Protocol" since it is redundant.

https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/1960

[Steve_B]

@biggsy:

There seems to be a collision between the parameter title and the checkbox in the first image.
Maybe a wider space for the parameter title and less for the parameter would help. 
many parameter areas do seem excessively wide.

This seems to happen only in one of several viewport sizes. I'll look at it later today.

@biggsy:

The numeric increment/decrement scroll seems to be a bit pointless.
Is anyone really going to scroll up/down rather than type most of the typical numbers? 
Would the scroll even be usable on a mobile platform?
Either way, it does seem that it's not applied consistently.

This is a Bootstrap thing. When you make an input of type "number" the increment/decrement arrows automatically appear. In most cases they are not very useful, but the input validation provided is. They are not perfectly consistent because there are (mostly) numeric input fields that also need to accept text, and there it is not appropriate to use type = "number".

@biggsy:

This one has always made me wonder.  Is it not just IP version 6, rather than TCP/IP?

Updated this morning via PR #1960

Thanks!