Orientation of Tab Text

[paul_cardinale]

When tabs are on the side, the text should be correctly oriented:

[RavensFan]

Having the option to orient the tabs like you want is fine.  But I wouldn't consider that "correctly" oriented.

The current practice is what I see as a windows standard.  However I rarely see tabs on the right and have never seen them like you propose.

[JB]

Give the user the possibility to set the orientation of the text.

[paul_cardinale]

1. I think that most people would consider that words are "correctly" oriented when they are right-side-up.

2. I don't reccommend using anything that MS does as a standard.

3. I have seen tabs on the right, and with the words correctly (yes, correctly) oriented,

4. With suffiecient gyrations, it is possible to get references to the text objects on the tab labels, but if you try to change the vertical arrangment, you get error 1453: "You may only set the vertical arrangement on a label, caption or free label."

[altenbach]

Also remember than you can insert images into tabs, so take an image of your desired text and you get exactly what you want.

right-click tab...advanced...tab layout

(And if you use fixed size images there is less danger of changing the tab panel area if the number of characters changes).

[RavensFan]

---

@paul_cardinale wrote:

1. I think that most people would consider that words are "correctly" oriented when they are right-side-up.

2. I don't reccommend using anything that MS does as a standard.

3. I have seen tabs on the right, and with the words correctly (yes, correctly) oriented,

4. With sufficient gyrations, it is possible to get references to the text objects on the tab labels, but if you try to change the vertical arrangment, you get error 1453: "You may only set the vertical arrangement on a label, caption or free label."

---

1.  I'd like to see a poll on that one.  I don't think you can presume what most people think.

2.  Maybe MS doesn't do everything as well as they should, but they are the de fact standard, and for the best user experience, following that is a good idea.

3.  If this was an Excel chart with a Y-axis title, correct to me would be running up vertically, NOT something that runs horizontally right side up.

4.   I did kudo your idea because I would like to see your idea implemented.  I just considered it presumptious to conclude that what you propose is "correctly" oriented.

[RavensFan]

1. I think that most people would consider that words are "correctly" oriented when they are right-side-up.

2. I don't reccommend using anything that MS does as a standard.

3. I have seen tabs on the right, and with the words correctly (yes, correctly) oriented,

4. With sufficient gyrations, it is possible to get references to the text objects on the tab labels, but if you try to change the vertical arrangment, you get error 1453: "You may only set the vertical arrangement on a label, caption or free label."

[PaulG.]

I have no problem with tabs that run up and down on either side. Sometimes that feels a little more intuitive. But the text needs to be properly oriented. I guess it all depends on the application. Anything that gives us more flexibility should be Kudo'd.

[paul_cardinale]

1. Here, you can do the poll yourself.  Show this to people and see what they say.  (By the way, I can actually presume anything I want, including what most people think.)

2. When MS does something poorly, It certainly does not make for the best user experience, nor is it a good idea to follow it.  Copying bad behavior because it's popular is still bad behavior (for instance, when I go to the Golden Gate bridge, I never jump off).

[RavensFan]

1.  That image is out of context.  Yes, I would consider word 1 correct for normal reading, and also for top and bottom tabs.  I would consider Word 2 correct for left tabs and also the Y-axis in charts.  And word 4 correct for right tabs.

2.  Sure.  But I don't consider MS doing things poorly in this case.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> (for instance, when I go to the Golden Gate bridge, I never jump off)

Although the metaphor may be stretched in awkward directions by this statement, it is important to remember that you may not be the target user for the interface. If you are sufficiently atypical, what is correct for you may not be what is correct for software to do by default. Providing options is nice, but only if sufficient numbers of people want the option to justify the developer time.

NI frequently uses Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and Google as standards for UI. This is for two reasons:

a) as much fun as it is to poke at their occassional mistakes, they have huge budgets for UI research and more often than not provide user interfaces that are widely accepted and successful.

b) even when their UIs are bad ideas, copying them IS a good idea because they are what people come to expect. Every time LV decides to go against the platform, we hear about it. We hear about it also if we go with the platform, then the platform changes, and we don't adapt fast enough. It doesn't matter how good our UI is on its own -- our UI is judged as part of the overall environment. Your software will be as well, so frequently we provide tools that let you mimic the OS environment and not other options.

In this particular case, I doubt we act on this idea just because the overall idea of tabs-on-the-side is widely discredited in modern UI design, regardless of the way the text is oriented, such that any work we put into it would be of use to very few of our users. But the kudos might surprise me. We will see.

[paul_cardinale]

I disagree strongly with the notion that "even when their UIs are bad ideas, copying them IS a good idea because they are what people come to expect".

Giving people something crappy just because they are expecting crap is doing them a disservice.