Suggestions and improvements for the GUI

jc1976

for starters, 2 very simple suggestions/requests to consider.

On the right-side of each screen, next to the description, how about listing the default value?
for example: if to enable (or disable) a feature requires a 'check', why not put a note across from it that says
"default is checked (or unchecked)" or if there's a value (MTU size for example), list it..

that way if we make any changes, we know what we're changing it from. I know some will say "back up your configuration first" however if it's just a matter of a couple of checks (or unchecks), restoring a config seems like a lot of extra work.

this will be a tough one, but i think it's quite valid nonetheless..
consistency with activation and deactivation of settings. Allow me to explain.

Example: "disable tcp segmentation offload"

we usually associate "checking" a box with 'enabling'. why not have that across all facets. "check to enable, uncheck to disable", instead of some features being "check to enable" and others "check to disable".
i'm sure i'm not the only person who gets thrown for a loop with that one.

in a day and age where we're forced to pay for junk, it's a breath of fresh air to work with such a wonderfully engineered piece of software. Just would like to see a couple of changes to make it more intuitive.

if i've left you confused, i'd be glad to take screen shots if it'll help.

johnpoz

@jc1976 said in Suggestions and improvements for the GUI:

"check to enable, uncheck to disable"

This is not a bad idea.. I know a couple of examples, I guess comes down to who is looking at it, what is default, and the wording of the option..

More than likely when you have multiple developers working on something and they each have their own approach.. Reminds me of the silcon valley joke about tabs vs spaces which was a running joke and always threw Richard into a hissy fit ;)

Youtube Video

jc1976

@johnpoz

haha! yeah i get that!

"I know a couple of examples.."
i know a TON of them! i always get thrown off by it; enabling things that i mean to disable or visa versa, all because i was caught up in muscle memory of other settings..

it makes it difficult to conceptualize desired settings.. "for this to work, i need this, this, and this activated.." then there's a check to deactivate and it throws off the flow..

the thing to consider is consistency aids in simplicity.. i can't imagine that something like this would be at all difficult to implement, yet probably incredibly beneficial to all users.

dunno how to get folks to vote on it.

johnpoz

@jc1976 said in Suggestions and improvements for the GUI:

the thing to consider is consistency aids in simplicity.

I hear yeah.. couple issues I see that could delay running through every option and making sure its consistent across the board, is there are lot of them to look over. And once you start doing an option 1 way, and then present it a different way that can also cause confusion and misreading, etc.

I think the process of fixing such stuff is more complicated than the simple coding aspect of it.

And its not like the netgate/pfsense has a team of developers all sitting around looking for stuff to do ;)

So you run into, is the issue worth spending cycles on when they could be doing more pressing stuff.

Prob the most likely time such stuff could happen is when there is a major upgrade/change to the overall gui design.. This happened a while back for sure.. When they moved from 2.2 to 2.3

Converted GUI to the Bootstrap framework, completely new look
Changed the GUI and Captive Portal web server to nginx; removed lighttpd. #5719
Cleaned up a lot of GUI code, option text, etc

So maybe if attention is brought up now, when next time they do such a thing - it can be addressed then.

jc1976

@johnpoz

yeah! so how does one go about presenting the idea to the community to get the community's opinion/vote? so that it has the best chance of being considered?

considering the gui is just a php interface over a commandline, i doubt it's all that hard to implement.. it's not like rewriting the tcpip stack or thread handling..

the thing with writing code is, most look at seemingly little things as just that, little.. when infact they make all the difference in the world.. it's been 25 years since i wrote anything and it's all pretty much long forgotten.. i wish i knew php and how to compile all this stuff, i'd take it on myself and let the community decide if they like it or not

johnpoz

@jc1976 well I would think this thread is a good start. If it can gain some traction. Then you could put in a feature request on the pfsense redmine for your suggestedd changes/enhancements and reference this thread.

https://redmine.pfsense.org/