Context menu or Action buttons ?

Recently I was drawn into one of those UI “religious” disputes that has no easy answers and usually both sides are right. One of our web developers was trying out new web tech (with pretty rich widget library) and started to question himself about some basic usability decisions. The low level problem in this case is usually brought to “which widget should I use ?”. I’m not fond of bringing the usability problems to questions: Should I use Tabs over Menu ? Or should I use Context menu instead of buttons panel ? But sometimes if time is crucial factor and other usability levels are by default not addressed at all – better developer that asks those basic questions than developer that do not question himself at all.

Recently I was drawn into one of those UI “religious” disputes that has no easy answers and usually both sides are right. One of our web developers was trying out new web tech (with pretty rich widget library) and started to question himself about some basic usability decisions. The low level problem in this case is usually brought to “which widget should I use ?”. I’m not fond of bringing the usability problems to questions: Should I use Tabs over Menu ? Or should I use Context menu instead of buttons panel ? But sometimes if time is crucial factor and other usability levels are by default not addressed at all – better developer that asks those basic questions than developer that do not question himself at all. One of often “problematic” choice that is bring up by web developers is should user launch actions on selected objects (one of many or some of many) by “Context menu” or “Action buttons”. Basic example is shown below and it is usually a table or list of components that has some defined actions (i.e. on table where rows are single orders change status of selected order would be on of possible actions). Of course there are many other solutions that can be implemented (some actions can be handled directly in table row or cell) but narrowing choice to those two was subject of mentioned discussion. During those hot and fast discussions I wasn’t able to point out pros and cons of both solution that’s why I decided to grab them all in this one short post. I hope it will be helpful for same lone developers that thirstily look for best practise or choice while the answer is usually much contextual…

Action button panel

example_view_1

(plus) Pros

  • Clear indication of where and how many actions you can apply to selected row (or other selected object)
  • If action panel is visible all the time theme has expectable behaviour (at least if you are consistent at where you position your action panel)
  • Accessible solution on most mediums (mouse, touch screens, other pointing devices), panel can be bookmarked to be heard on reading devices
  • Action panel can be combined with Details panel (if there is enough space)
  • Actions can be described very precisely

(minus) Cons

  • Space consumption, even if some actions can be hidden under “Advanced” button, this design is always more “stuffed”
  • Can generate (sometimes really long) extra mouse moves and additional clicks
  • Keyboard support may be difficult if rows or selected widgets also use navigations buttons (tab key, arrows etc.)

Context menu

{#Test-Contextmenu}

example_view_2

(plus) Pros

  • If you stick to short action names space consumption is minimal and since it’s used only during action selection it’s also less perceptible
  • Much faster if you use mouse or keyboard (with context menu shortcut / button)
  • Actions can be organised in tree like hierarchy which can be navigated (expanded) with minimal mouse moves and no additional mouse clicks
  • Nicely combines with drag&drop or multi record actions

(minus) Cons

  • Since context menu is invisible until explicitly called some people may not be aware that there are any actions available on selected objects
  • Poor support on some touch pads or touch screens, problematic support on screen readers
  • If used in web applications it overrides default browser context menu which can be a nuisance for some users

Why not both ?

{#Test-Whynotboth%3F}

example_view_3

(plus) Pros

  • Beginners has clear indication of where and what actions are available on selected objects
  • Advanced users can use faster context menu approach, that do not confuse beginners (they still has their action buttons)
  • Action buttons panel can be compressed to minimum, only to show most important actions (other actions can be hidden under “Advanced” button)
  • Action panel can be combined with Details panel, since action buttons would be minimal, there should be more space for details
  • Hide action panel option if workspace size is crucial (i.e. some clients has limited screen size) and users are aware of context menu

(minus) Cons

  • Initially you still loose some fix space
  • Redundancy may be confusing for some users (although this con is questionable – unaware beginners do not see any redundancy, advanced users can hide action panel if it REALLY bothers them)

Summary Choice between Context menu or Action buttons panel is pretty contextual and “right” choice strongly depends on supported media and user group. However there is pretty good “mix” solution that gives more pros than cons (unless redundancy is big problem for you) and will satisfy unaware beginners and users that strives for fast actions. If you come to mentioned choice, always give a chance to “why not both ?” scenario.

You May Also Like

How to use mocks in controller tests

Even since I started to write tests for my Grails application I couldn't find many articles on using mocks. Everyone is talking about tests and TDD but if you search for it there isn't many articles.

Today I want to share with you a test with mocks for a simple and complete scenario. I have a simple application that can fetch Twitter tweets and present it to user. I use REST service and I use GET to fetch tweets by id like this: http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/236024636775735296.json. You can copy and paste it into your browser to see a result.

My application uses Grails 2.1 with spock-0.6 for tests. I have TwitterReaderService that fetches tweets by id, then I parse a response into my Tweet class.


class TwitterReaderService {
Tweet readTweet(String id) throws TwitterError {
try {
String jsonBody = callTwitter(id)
Tweet parsedTweet = parseBody(jsonBody)
return parsedTweet
} catch (Throwable t) {
throw new TwitterError(t)
}
}

private String callTwitter(String id) {
// TODO: implementation
}

private Tweet parseBody(String jsonBody) {
// TODO: implementation
}
}

class Tweet {
String id
String userId
String username
String text
Date createdAt
}

class TwitterError extends RuntimeException {}

TwitterController plays main part here. Users call show action along with id of a tweet. This action is my subject under test. I've implemented some basic functionality. It's easier to focus on it while writing tests.


class TwitterController {
def twitterReaderService

def index() {
}

def show() {
Tweet tweet = twitterReaderService.readTweet(params.id)
if (tweet == null) {
flash.message = 'Tweet not found'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

[tweet: tweet]
}
}

Let's start writing a test from scratch. Most important thing here is that I use mock for my TwitterReaderService. I do not construct new TwitterReaderService(), because in this test I test only TwitterController. I am not interested in injected service. I know how this service is supposed to work and I am not interested in internals. So before every test I inject a twitterReaderServiceMock into controller:


import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification

@TestFor(TwitterController)
class TwitterControllerSpec extends Specification {
TwitterReaderService twitterReaderServiceMock = Mock(TwitterReaderService)

def setup() {
controller.twitterReaderService = twitterReaderServiceMock
}
}

Now it's time to think what scenarios I need to test. This line from TwitterReaderService is the most important:


Tweet readTweet(String id) throws TwitterError

You must think of this method like a black box right now. You know nothing of internals from controller's point of view. You're only interested what can be returned for you:

  • a TwitterError can be thrown
  • null can be returned
  • Tweet instance can be returned

This list is your test blueprint. Now answer a simple question for each element: "What do I want my controller to do in this situation?" and you have plan test:

  • show action should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown and inform about error
  • show action should redirect to index and inform if tweet is not found
  • show action should show found tweet

That was easy and straightforward! And now is the best part: we use twitterReaderServiceMock to mock each of these three scenarios!

In Spock there is a good documentation about interaction with mocks. You declare what methods are called, how many times, what parameters are given and what should be returned. Remember a black box? Mock is your black box with detailed instruction, e.g.: I expect you that if receive exactly one call to readTweet with parameter '1' then you should throw me a TwitterError. Rephrase this sentence out loud and look at this:


1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }

This is a valid interaction definition on mock! It's that easy! Here is a complete test that fails for now:


import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification

@TestFor(TwitterController)
class TwitterControllerSpec extends Specification {
TwitterReaderService twitterReaderServiceMock = Mock(TwitterReaderService)

def setup() {
controller.twitterReaderService = twitterReaderServiceMock
}

def "show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }
0 * _._
flash.message == 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
response.redirectUrl == '/twitter/index'
}
}

| Failure: show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown(pl.refaktor.twitter.TwitterControllerSpec)
| pl.refaktor.twitter.TwitterError
at pl.refaktor.twitter.TwitterControllerSpec.show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown_closure1(TwitterControllerSpec.groovy:29)

You may notice 0 * _._ notation. It says: I don't want any other mocks or any other methods called. Fail this test if something is called! It's a good practice to ensure that there are no more interactions than you want.

Ok, now I need to implement controller logic to handle TwitterError.


class TwitterController {

def twitterReaderService

def index() {
}

def show() {
Tweet tweet

try {
tweet = twitterReaderService.readTweet(params.id)
} catch (TwitterError e) {
log.error(e)
flash.message = 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

[tweet: tweet]
}
}

My tests passes! We have two scenarios left. Rule stays the same: TwitterReaderService returns something and we test against it. So this line is the heart of each test, change only returned values after >>:


1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }

Here is a complete test for three scenarios and controller that passes it.


import grails.test.mixin.TestFor
import spock.lang.Specification

@TestFor(TwitterController)
class TwitterControllerSpec extends Specification {

TwitterReaderService twitterReaderServiceMock = Mock(TwitterReaderService)

def setup() {
controller.twitterReaderService = twitterReaderServiceMock
}

def "show should redirect to index if TwitterError is thrown"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> { throw new TwitterError() }
0 * _._
flash.message == 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
response.redirectUrl == '/twitter/index'
}

def "show should inform about not found tweet"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> null
0 * _._
flash.message == 'Tweet not found'
response.redirectUrl == '/twitter/index'
}


def "show should show found tweet"() {
given:
controller.params.id = '1'
when:
controller.show()
then:
1 * twitterReaderServiceMock.readTweet('1') >> new Tweet()
0 * _._
flash.message == null
response.status == 200
}
}

class TwitterController {

def twitterReaderService

def index() {
}

def show() {
Tweet tweet

try {
tweet = twitterReaderService.readTweet(params.id)
} catch (TwitterError e) {
log.error(e)
flash.message = 'There was an error on fetching your tweet'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

if (tweet == null) {
flash.message = 'Tweet not found'
redirect(action: 'index')
return
}

[tweet: tweet]
}
}

The most important thing here is that we've tested controller-service interaction without logic implementation in service! That's why mock technique is so useful. It decouples your dependencies and let you focus on exactly one subject under test. Happy testing!