Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Usability suggestion: reveal / large type #197

Closed
alexandru opened this issue Apr 13, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Usability suggestion: reveal / large type #197

alexandru opened this issue Apr 13, 2016 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
Type ◦ Enhancement Improves an existing feature ux UX and usability
Milestone

Comments

@alexandru
Copy link

Hello,

On the desktop one can press Cmd+C for copying a password.
But this is only useful for filling passwords while using the same computer. And sometimes you want to copy passwords manually from the computer's screen to a phone or another computer. But then clicking on the password field to show it has two problems:

  1. the text is too small to see from a distance (i.e our eyes are trained to easily recognize words, but not random characters) and
  2. it's error prone, as one can easily make modifications

1Password (the manager I've been using) has two actions meant for password fields: "Reveal" which just displays passwords and "Large type" which displays passwords in a very big font, such that you can see it from a distance. And in "Large type" mode it displays letters, numbers and special characters in different colors, such that you can differentiate between o, 0 and O.

In regards to clicking on a password field, it's especially error prone on mobile phones. The interface is almost usable on my iPhone, which is more than I could have hoped for, but revealing a password field is error prone and the text is too small.

Btw, thanks for this project, looking great.

@antelle antelle added Type ◦ Enhancement Improves an existing feature ux UX and usability labels Apr 13, 2016
@antelle antelle added this to the v1.x milestone Apr 13, 2016
@maxiride
Copy link

I'd like to reinforce that indeed clicking on a field automatically make it editable which is a huge risk of loosing a password. A locked\unlocked edit status would be awesome for this.

@kasoban
Copy link
Contributor

kasoban commented Apr 14, 2016

@maxiride unless you change it 10 times in a row by accident you will always be covered by the entry history (unless you like to live dangerously and turned that off)

@alexandru
Copy link
Author

@kasoban on the desktop you're right, because we can be precise with a mouse/keyboard and accidents don't happen that often. But when they do, you might not notice it immediately and that can cause confusion the next time you try logging in.

But this is especially wrong on phones and tables, because that damn screen keyboard pops up once you focus an input field and you can easily touch it by accident and then you start becoming afraid of looking at passwords :-P Some sort of lock that prevents editing and makes those inputs disabled would be fine I guess.

@maxiride
Copy link

@kasoban lol you are right. I've discovered the app just a couple of days ago and didn't noticed the history feature! My fault =)

@antelle
Copy link
Member

antelle commented Apr 14, 2016

@alexandru editing sucks on mobiles for now. e.g. exit from edit mode by click doesn't work for mobiles. Later, mobile editing ux will be improved with better controls, more suitable for touch devices. Edit/Save buttons are not necessary for this.

@antelle
Copy link
Member

antelle commented Apr 15, 2017

As a first step of this, now we show some buttons on mobile devices, so editing is now more convenient:
editing

@antelle
Copy link
Member

antelle commented Oct 26, 2019

Next version will show this actions panel with different actions:
Screen Shot 2019-10-26 at 20 51 56

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Type ◦ Enhancement Improves an existing feature ux UX and usability
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants