When we first started building Orion, the site had two pages, a navigator and an editor. Over the course of our release 0.2 development, we grew quite a few pages as we added function. As part of this effort, we worked on the visual design for the pages, with most of that focus being on the overall visual style of Orion and the layout of the header.
Are we anatomically correct?
For our current release, we want to put a "fresh coat of paint" on the pages, but as I've looked at some of our most problematic pages, I've come to realize that we first need to stop talking about things like "headers" and "footers" and start talking about the common, semantic elements that appear on all Orion pages. I'm not talking about HTML elements per se. If we can define and agree on the list of building blocks, then we can talk about how to represent them in the DOM and arrange them visually. The work in progress is documented on the Orion wiki. In this article, I'll describe some insights I've had while working on this anatomy.
In an extensible system like Orion, it's important to think about anatomy vs. layout because we want to allow plug-ins to contribute functionality to existing Orion pages, as well as provide links to pages from another site. When I get a bug report that says, "how can I put a link in the Orion header" or "how can I put a command on the navigator toolbar," I like to ask what the link is for and what is the user workflow, because perhaps that link belongs somewhere else on the page. Hence the focus on anatomy vs. visual layout boxes.
The current list of body parts (no pun intended) is something like this. (The wiki page will be kept up to date with our thinking and explanations of each.)
- Legalese (the fine print)
- Discovery links
- Expected links
- User Info
- Task (static page title)
- Hierarchical Location
- Related Task Links
- Task+Resource (Page) Level Commands
- Resource View Controls
- Resource Content
Here's a picture of how these elements might be organized on a page. (Note this is an anatomical picture, I'm not proposing that the Orion header adopt ice cream colors.) Most (all?) sites put the branding on the top left corner and legalese at the bottom, but of course if we stick with semantic definitions when structuring a page, this doesn't have to be true.
The body parts that might need some explaining are the ones where I've learned something about our page anatomy and have attempted to use terminology to further qualify an element.
A link is a link is a link?
With links, I find it helpful to differentiate links by thinking about their scope and purpose.
- Discovery links are there so the user discovers pages that are helpful in the overall site workflows. If you are coding js in Orion, perhaps you'd like to know about "site xyz." (Hmmm....as I type this explanation I realize I haven't mentioned "advertisement" in the anatomy.)
- Expected links are links you might need to find someday, but you'll expect them and be willing to go looking for it. For example, how do I get support? How do I open a bug?
- Related task links are links that are directly related to what you are doing. For example, if you are looking at the git log for some repository/branch, it's highly likely you might want to see the git status for that branch.
A resource by any other name?
Another discovery for me is that it's not enough to talk about "the resource" that a user is operating on. I'm not talking about the page resource/URL, I'm talking about the way the user thinks about the resource they are working with. At a minimum, a resource has a fully qualified (hierarchical) location and a name. But if you add version control to the mix, then you might also want to talk about a particular version of that resource, or perhaps a particular repository. I'm still looking for a better word, but for now I call these dimensions.
Allowing the user to consistently find (and change) dimensions can help the usability of our workflows. Let's take a specific example involving git. Today, in the Orion editor, I can be happily editing my js file. I can even use the breadcrumb to open a navigator within this hierarchy and find related files. But why can't I switch to another branch from the editor? We could hard-code a "switch branch" command into the editor page in the toolbar, but if we instead generalize this idea and have a way to show, and switch, dimensions in a common place on the page, then it will be easier for plug-ins to contribute dimensions and for users to have a common place to go to switch the resource content on the page.
The high level anatomy mentions "Resource Content" but we know there all kinds of ways to represent something, depending on how complex it is. The following terminology helps me talk about the different styles of pages we have:
- A single content area is appropriate when a resource is best viewed as a unit. The Orion code editor is a good example of a resource that is best viewed with a single content area. Sometimes I think of it as "the real body of the page."
- Sections organize the view of the resource into separate pieces, so that you can work with different aspects of a resource at a time.
- Outliners help to navigate a content area. For a single content area, they may simply move the content in a structured way (like the editor outliner). For a resource organized in sections, they may navigate the sections (or help you to swap sections in and out on a page).
By formalizing the sectional nature of pages, we can make it easy in the future for plug-ins to contribute additional sections to a page, provide common places for the user to find commands that apply to a particular section, and common controls for expanding/collapsing or organizing sections.
HTML5: to section or not to section?
When I use the word "section" above I am really talking about a way to organize the viewing and manipulating of a resource. But I didn't want to use that word if it didn't jive with the notion of an HTML5 section. So I checked the HTML5 spec for guidance regarding HTML section elements, and I think this is the right word to use, and that we will end up with HTML5 sections as the tags for these elements on the page. In particular, the spec says, "A general rule is that the section element is appropriate only if the element's contents would be listed explicitly in the document's outline." That seems to hold up to the way we are using them.
What does this mean to our technical page architecture?
I'm not sure yet, but of course I'll guess.
- For plug-in developers, we'll formalize our markup surrounding sections and how to describe them in a plug-in. I don't think we'll have plug-ins contributing sections per se in Orion 0.4, but I think we'll start down an implementation path that will make that possible. And we'll probably see a plugin's preferences rendered in a section on the preference page.
What I do know is that in Orion 0.4, it will be easier for you to move between pages in your workflow. And in part, that will because of this anatomy and its corresponding implementation. But while you are using Orion, I don't want you to think about that. Hopefully, you'll just instinctively know how to find what you are trying to do, and think, "wow, these guys always get those links and buttons in just the place I expect them to be!"