Jump to content

Issues with the new UI


Recommended Posts

Thanks to Samuel making this post I'm starting a thread for specific UI issues - as in what you don't like about the UI.

 

Please, as stated in that post, be specificabout what you do not like.  General "I don't like how it looks" or "It looks too much like a fake AV" are not going to be helpful to the staff, but very specific items like "The button highlighting in the Settings window is very hard to see on my OS" will be much more helpful.

 

I'll start:

 

  1. Settings window - the navigation panel on the left with the blue background and white text is very hard for me to read.
  2. Settings window - the button highlighting is hard to see on my OS.  It looks nice, but sometimes it is not easy to see, particularly depending upon ambient light (actually, sunlight reflecting off monitor).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I don't like about the new main GUI has actually nothing to do with the appearance of the new main GUI itself but the program as it relates to the new main GUI

 

I don't like the fact that when you close MBAM and then re-open it, it re-opens back to where you were when you closed it and not at the Dashboard.   This of course is just a personal preference and I can understand why others would prefer it to reopen back where it was when you closed it and not automatically at the Dashboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I don't like about the new main GUI has actually nothing to do with the appearance of the new main GUI itself but the program as it relates to the new main GUI

 

I don't like the fact that when you close MBAM and then re-open it, it re-opens back to where you were when you closed it and not at the Dashboard.   This of course is just a personal preference and I can understand why others would prefer it to reopen back where it was when you closed it and not automatically at the Dashboard.

 

Then I would like a setting to choose between the current status quo method and your described method, b/c I prefer the status quo - that way I can close and open it at will as I do other things and come right back to where I was previously.

 

UI fail:  Can't have a protection log open in the GUI (not external viewer) and do anything else in any other part MBAM - like, say, re-adding files to the exclusion list after having accidentally removed them and not remembering which file it was that you removed, and having to go look in the Scan log in History to find the file.

 

I can see why that might be restricted after having run a scan and having found (potential) malicious objects, but when I am opening the program manually I should be able to view a scan log and still navigate around in the MBAM system.  But, when I were to close the MBAM GUI, it should then ask me to close all related windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that fact than now you can exclude processes and IP or domains.

 

That being said, I think that adding for example utorrent to the Web Exceptions is actually leaving a hole for folks to get infected.  I would rather continue to have the blocks occur, but allow me to turn off the notification for that exception, in this case utorrent.  I think its important to continue to block the connections from known locations that contain malware in all applications, unless given the option to ignore them completely or at least turn off the notifications for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the fact that when you close MBAM and then re-open it, it re-opens back to where you were when you closed it and not at the Dashboard.  

+1

 

That being said, I think that adding for example utorrent to the Web Exceptions is actually leaving a hole for folks to get infected.  I would rather continue to have the blocks occur, but allow me to turn off the notification for that exception, in this case utorrent.  I think its important to continue to block the connections from known locations that contain malware in all applications, unless given the option to ignore them completely or at least turn off the notifications for it.

 

+1

What was wrong with the "old" way - of leaving the protection enabled, but blocking the notifications?

I'm not a P2P user, but excluding the entire process does seem intuitively counterproductive, even with the posted warnings about lowering security?

It seems that this could exacerbate what might already be considered a potentially risky behavior?

<Runs for cover........................>

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I don't like about the new main GUI has actually nothing to do with the appearance of the new main GUI itself but the program as it relates to the new main GUI

 

I don't like the fact that when you close MBAM and then re-open it, it re-opens back to where you were when you closed it and not at the Dashboard.   This of course is just a personal preference and I can understand why others would prefer it to reopen back where it was when you closed it and not automatically at the Dashboard.

I tend to agree with you, actually, and this is something I myself have requested. I understand why others may wish it to remember the last tab they were on, but I'm not one to constantly close and re-open it in a short span of time. Generally I do what I need to do in the GUI, close it, and then if I re-open it, it's for a completely different purpose at a much later time. So having it not start at the Dashboard every time not only robs me of having an instant status update for all of the tasks and states monitored there, it also quite frequently means I've got to make more clicks once I have my bearings just to get where I'm going in the UI. The Dashboard I find is a much better starting point than any other tab simply because of all of the information and functions contained there, not to mention the shortcuts it contains to certain other areas of the UI (such as scheduling).

 

 

I like that fact than now you can exclude processes and IP or domains.

 

That being said, I think that adding for example utorrent to the Web Exceptions is actually leaving a hole for folks to get infected.  I would rather continue to have the blocks occur, but allow me to turn off the notification for that exception, in this case utorrent.  I think its important to continue to block the connections from known locations that contain malware in all applications, unless given the option to ignore them completely or at least turn off the notifications for it.

Actually, I've never heard of a connection from a Bittorrent client causing an infection at all. Only the files downloaded by one, which are identical regardless of the source (good IP or bad IP) because each object downloaded through such clients is hash checked/verified, so if an infection is coming through a Bittorrent client, it isn't because of where it came from, but simply because of what it is, which is where the purpose of Malware Protection comes into play to stop malware on the system from executing and quarantining it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks both for providing this great forum and for "listening" to user feedback!

 

One item that confused me on first sight was the "Automated Scheduling" screen.

 

I initially thought that the check-boxes would enable/disable the item in the same line.

Now I believe you need to delete an item to disable it. Right?

 

Also, why is it that you need to click a line to select it for "edit", but you have to check the select box to select it for removal?

 

If I have two items in my list, one highlighted and the other checked then I will never remember which one gets deleted if I hit remove.

 

Thanks

brino

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.  If an item is in the scheduled tasks list, it is enabled.  'Disabling' is only achieved by removing it.

 

I too find the new system confusing, and am in the same boat as you - I may be able to sort of understand the rationale, in that you have to specifically use the check-box to remove an item, thereby making it hard to 'accidentally' remove it, but not being able to disable / enable them without having to completely remove an item (and then have the hassle of recreating it later when you want it enabled again) it a real PITA.

 

Thanks for reminding me of this - I had forgotten about it by now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

just found another little "funny"

 

If I navigate from say the Dashboard to the Settings screen, it opens on the "General Settings" tab, so far so good.

However, after I go to the any other tab (say the Automated Scheduling") I cannot get back to the "General Setting" tab.

 

Wait, after playing with it for a while I noticed that the target area for the "General Setting" button just seems smaller than the others.

Unlike all the opther buttons, I cannot click directly on the text in the button area, I need to move away from the center.

Strange....

 

brino

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have few suggestions, some were already provided by other folks:

 

1. Under My Account tab add license version (lifetime/subscription) with renewal date for subsciption based.

 

2. On the dashboard have a yellow top bar when website protection is disabled by the user - "Your system is not fully protected" should be yellow in my opinion. Red one should be resereved for total inactive protection or threat. Add yellow exclamation circle under real-time protection status or green check marks/red x's beside each specific protection (malware/website/chamaleon).

 

3. Minor thing but prefer to change the "Scan Now" button text to "Continue" when selecting "Custom Scan" mode.

 

4. "Reset Default settings" links in Settings should have a confirmation dialog to avoid errorenous resets (just in case).

 

5. Have a short mouse hover description on some options/checks in Scan and Settings tabs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My HP Mini netbook runs at a screen resolution of 1024 x 600. The logs viewer window's top-to-bottom dimension is larger than that, so the Export,Copy to Clipboard, and OK buttons are not accessible.

 

I seem to recall that one of the dialog windows during installation was that way, too, so big that the controls weren't accesible, but I was able to work them blind. I can't be sure about that now, though.

 

Also, there is some verbiage in the upper center panel of the Scanning History Log window that is garbled, unreadable on my screen.

 

Below is a picture showing both these issues. Until these are fixed, I'm downgrading to ver. 1.75.

 

 

MBAM_logs_window.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I've never heard of a connection from a Bittorrent client causing an infection at all. Only the files downloaded by one, which are identical regardless of the source (good IP or bad IP) because each object downloaded through such clients is hash checked/verified, so if an infection is coming through a Bittorrent client, it isn't because of where it came from, but simply because of what it is, which is where the purpose of Malware Protection comes into play to stop malware on the system from executing and quarantining it.

Thanks for the info exile360...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, all:
 
I guess I'll add my 2-bucks' worth, while the dev team is still working on the next build.
I don't expect that some/all/any of these requests will make it into the next release, but I'll offer them anyway.

Disclaimer: because of work projects swallowing up all my play time, I haven't actually yet updated any of my boxes (see #8 below).

So I am being a bit of a "carpet bagger" to post about 2.00.

 

Nonetheless....

Agree with DavidMbncus about bringing back the update log.
AND:

  • Foremost cosmetic request: toning down the garish, technicolor color scheme. YES, I understand the Red/Green association. I mean the very bright, saturated blue, which is hard on the eyes (especially for the color blind, elderly and others), especially with all the red and green banners and buttons on the bright background. It might (or might not) be all the fashion rage. But I would sure like to see the scientific evidence that supports any contention or assumption that any GUI color scheme will save non-savvy users from themselves. (YEAH! In the works! Thanks!)
  • Cosmetic: I don't know that all the fancy 3-D stuff really adds anything -- IMHO, more contrast between un-highlighted and highlighted items would be more helpful than 3D.
  • Doesn't really affect me (as I own all of my computers and all of my lifetime licenses), but I do like the idea of a display in the dashboard as to whether the license is lifetime or subscription, and what the expiration date (or days remaining) is (similar to the AVs).
  • Remove or provide the ability to hide the dashboard ads for other products (even for other MBAM software).
  • Foremost functional request: Restore the ability for users to completely disable BOTH automatic checking for AND automatic downloading of PROGRAM updates (I think this one might already be on the list). :)Many of us would like to have that control restored, as in previous versions.
  • Popups and notifications: Golidlocks and 3 Bears on this one. I personally like the way 1.75 works - I am pretty hands-on, but I also like the reassurance that updates/flash scans have taken place OK, that a scheduled scan has run, etc.. I don't want to be pummeled with constant, stacking popups and other notifications, but having a bit of granular control to decide what to enable and what not would be nice. (I think this is already in the works.)
  • Scheduler: This isn't mission-critical, but I would prefer that the update check randomization NOT override the scan schedule. I understand the switch from "flash scan after updates" in 1.75 to "check for updates before scan" in 2.00. And I likewise understand the update check randomization; I have learned to live with it. But I like my once daily Threat/Quick scan to occur on schedule, not randomized. So, it would be nice to be able to ENABLE "check for updates before scan", but not have that cause the subsequent scan to be randomized, too. After all, many of us schedule update checks hourly, but scans only daily. So it wouldn't seem to be a huge server load to permit the scan schedule to override the update check randomization. (Yes, I understand that if I disable "check for update before scan", my scan will occur at the exact time.)
  • Settings that can be saved, exported and READ by the user. 1.75 takes about 2 minutes to install, activate, configure, set up and run. 2.00 is FAR more complicated, especially for users who are NOT using default settings. Backing up settings, or reinstalling or transferring or exporting to another box would be greatly enhanced if the settings could be saved in a user-friendlyf format (e.g. in a txt file). Example: extension-list-dumper extension for Mozilla Fx allows one to save, and print a READABLE list of one's Fx extensions.
  • ARK support for encrypted drives.
  • Pet peeve: I know I'm delusional to think this will ever change, but the scan name thing still bugs me. Since most users find that 2.00's more thorough scanning takes longer than 1.75 scans, "Hyper" now seems like a bit of a misnomer (with all the various other connotations already discussed during the beta tests)?  Moreover, my rhetorical (partially tongue-in-cheek) question is: If a Threat scan scans for threats, what do the other scans look for? :D (Yes, Quick just makes more sense.)cMtSizM.gif

Seriously, as always, I care most about what's under the hood.
And I wouldn't complain if I didn't love and trust the product (8, count 'em, 8 paid lifetime licenses - 1 more and I will become a feline!).

Thanks for all your hard work making 2.00 the BEST ever!

 

daledoc1

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to Daledoc1's post, I'd like to add something to her post #7:

 

Please being back the functionality of running a Hyper scan immediately after a definition update is performed.  That is the way it makes most sense to me - just updated the definitions, and now let's verify the integrity of running processes and locations immediately to make sure no new 0-day malware is present.

 

Scheduling a scan and adding the check for updates throws off the scanning timing, and IMO is not a viable replacement for that functionality from 1.xx version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also like to add (although it may just be me not being able to find the correct user setting) is there a way to stop the main window from popping up when a scan is being done. This only seems to happen now with 2.0 and not the previous version. Just let the scan take place in the background like it always did, and only have a window pop up if there's an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Brino and John L Galt about confusion about the use of the checkboxes for scheduled tasks (updates and scans). I'd like to know positively what tasks are active by having the box checked and to have the option to have task(s) present but not active by having the box unchecked. I'm not certain of a better way to assure deletion(s) are intentional other than to ask "Are you sure" when a task is highlighted and delete is clicked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also like to add (although it may just be me not being able to find the correct user setting) is there a way to stop the main window from popping up when a scan is being done. This only seems to happen now with 2.0 and not the previous version. Just let the scan take place in the background like it always did, and only have a window pop up if there's an issue.

 

Settings --> Automated Scheduling --> Select your scheduled scan and edit --> Advanced button --> Enable Terminate program when no threats are found

Link to post
Share on other sites

Settings --> Automated Scheduling --> Select your scheduled scan and edit --> Advanced button --> Enable Terminate program when no threats are found

No, he's referring to the issue that some have with scheduled scans popping up the main UI during the scan. It's actually a bug and scheduled scans are always supposed to run in the tray and simply notify you if anything was detected by the scan, but currently under certain conditions when the scan starts, the main UI will pop up. We will have this corrected in our upcoming patch release.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosmetic: I don't know that all the fancy 3-D stuff really adds anything -- IMHO, more contrast between un-highlighted and highlighted items would be more helpful than 3D.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you cite some specific examples of items that are in '3D' that shouldn't be?

 

Settings that can be saved, exported and READ by the user. 1.75 takes about 2 minutes to install, activate, configure, set up and run. 2.00 is FAR more complicated, especially for users who are NOT using default settings. Backing up settings, or reinstalling or transferring or exporting to another box would be greatly enhanced if the settings could be saved in a user-friendlyf format (e.g. in a txt file). Example: extension-list-dumper extension for Mozilla Fx allows one to save, and print a READABLE list of one's Fx extensions.

This one makes me nervous, at least for a security product. If we opened up the configuration that way, what would there be to stop the bad guys from manipulating your settings by say, turning off all protection and simultaneously disabling all notifications about it (assuming we did eventually allow users to disable such notifications, which we definitely are considering at this point)? I'm OK with exporting, but I don't think that having the format be readable by the user is a good idea for the reason I stated regarding malware/hackers. I don't think any other security product does this, at least none I've ever seen. An internet browser is a different animal that accepts add-ons and plugins of a third party nature, which is why it makes sense that they would have such exportable lists, but every setting in MBAM is configurable in the UI and isn't open to third party additions or changes, so I see little use for it myself. Exporting the settings or saving them during uninstall (if say we decided to add a 'clean' uninstall option in the future, which we just might ;)) would be a good idea I think.

 

ARK support for encrypted drives.

This one may not be possible, but we are looking into it. The fact is, if the drive is encrypted, it means that if we were able to work around it, we'd have to crack that encryption because the entire point of encrypting a drive is to prevent others from being able to read the data it contains, including via scanners like ours.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.