Avast GUI Discussion

[schmidthouse]

@essexboy post:20

I would agree that we should keep the shield concept as it in a way it states "this is Avast " as to merging them then if need be do it as local computer, network, sandbox

Myself I am quite happy with the status quo

+1000
I find this organization and instant viewing of stats “dead on” ;D ;D

[system]

---

I must agree with not making “supershields” and with the points made by Essexboy & schmidthouse just above this post.

---

[system]

1. Mostly yes
2. Yes
3. Absolutely great, don’t ever think of removing it, please
4. Settings are fine
5. No issues here
6. I dislike most of it. I don’t like the big, round, picture. I don’t like that only LAST examined item is listed, and abbreviated at that. Nothing short of a screen with tabs showing full name of what was scanned, say, for a day or a week will do. That’s where Avira shines over Avast - their reports, while the columns are narrow, can be read and understood. A one liner report or a graph of frequencies is to me useless. Can’t even copy what’s reported to notepad. Shield log is always empty (I suspect it’ll show if infections detected).
7. Is fine as is, works ok, does the job of updating. I haven’t yet updated to the lattest which, I gather, eliminates the double voice message.
8. “Click to see your complete security reports for the last 30 days” link - useless to me unless somebody can tell me what I gain by so clicking. Can’t think of any more. Avast shines in my book and keeps getting better and is still amazingly small footprint in ProcessExplorer.

[system]

@essexboy post:20

I would agree that we should keep the shield concept as it in a way it states "this is Avast " as to merging them then if need be do it as local computer, network, sandbox

Myself I am quite happy with the status quo

completely agree +uncountable numbers ;D

avast from the start have been with the shield concept and it should be that way.

[system]

Hi Vlk. I think the shields situation is definitely one that needs simplifying. I think consolidating them under two or three categories would be a great idea IF it can be done without taking away control the user has over what shields are running. If it means putting everything under the hood where users don’t have the ability to enable or disable it would be a bad idea in my opinion. Another option is to write more detail into the program Help file so people will be able to understand the shields better.

[system]

@schmidthouse post:21

@essexboy post:20

I would agree that we should keep the shield concept as it in a way it states "this is Avast " as to merging them then if need be do it as local computer, network, sandbox

Myself I am quite happy with the status quo

+1000
I find this organization and instant viewing of stats “dead on” ;D ;D

IMO i just feel that this status is not needed and can be replaced with someting more usefull information maybe like process or network monitor or maybe virus information ;D

and also why in quarantine tab there is no toolbar for delete or restore or submit

[system]

One thing I really like about Avast is its flexibility. The thing I’ve noticed about a lot of software that tries to make things “simpler” is you lose a lot of the flexibility you have in more “complicated” programs. Right now I think Avast has a pretty good balance between the two. Some consolidation in the interface would probably be good, so long as flexibility and options aren’t sacrificed in the process.

[system]

1 MORE IMPORTANT suggestion:

Please dont put the continue execution button on the SB analysis result pop up directly…

Place it in a drop down menu this way:

Open in sandbox[Recommended]
Continue execution

with open in sandbox as the default thing to show up first to the user’s eye…i had some of my clients clicking the open execution button instead of the close button accidently!! :o

And with the above you guys could replace close button with a OK button.

[RejZoR]

Actually i think avast! team is trying to make Auto Sandbox in direction of automatically executing the program after analysis. Maybe not just yet but i can tell you whole thing is going into that direction, to make it as transparent as possible. The “Continue executing” button directly on Auto Sandbox analysis popup proves that quite nicely…

[system]

@Vlk post:7

…Also, we now have 8 shields in Avast and it is true that their functionality may be somewhat dependent on each other. Do you think it would make sense (and make the UI more understandable) if we merged them to just a couple of “super shields”? Or got ridden of the Shield concept altogether?

Thanks
Vlk

Please don’t get rid of the individual shields. Thay are the most important part of Avast protection. AVG Free doesn’t have any real time shielding and that makes it pretty much useless. I find the indivdual sheilds useful, and as I have a little old Net top running XP, I can customize the installation to what I use and what the little eMachines EL1600 can handle. I don’t use P2P applications for example, so didn’t install that shield.

I personally find the current UI easy to use and navigate, and it also looks nice too. If you wanted to make any changes at all, some users might want customizable skins the way
AdAware used to have a while back.

[system]

I think adding a “Hint of the day” to the GUI would be nice as long as it was not obtrusive and could be turned off.

[CraigB]

@Nesivos post:31

I think adding a “Hint of the day” to the GUI would be nice as long as it was not obtrusive and could be turned off.

Un-needed bloat imo

[system]

@craigb post:32

@Nesivos post:31

I think adding a “Hint of the day” to the GUI would be nice as long as it was not obtrusive and could be turned off.

Un-needed bloat imo

Goes without saying that it would be “Un-needed bloat” for an “avast! Überevangelist Ultra Poster” SMH

[schmidthouse]

@ardi_sugianto post:26

@schmidthouse post:21

@essexboy post:20

I would agree that we should keep the shield concept as it in a way it states "this is Avast " as to merging them then if need be do it as local computer, network, sandbox

Myself I am quite happy with the status quo

+1000
I find this organization and instant viewing of stats “dead on” ;D ;D

IMO i just feel that this status is not needed and can be replaced with someting more usefull information maybe like process or network monitor or maybe virus information ;D

and also why in quarantine tab there is no toolbar for delete or restore or submit

“process or network monitor” ??? I imagine your firewall may already do that.
Mine does

[system]

I think you should merged some shield to just a couple of “super shields”. Some people remove some shield during installation and don’t know that they are dependent. For simplicity i think it is the best option. By the way every antivirus vendor do it that way and 8 shields doesn’t necessary mean better protection for me.

For the rest i think that avast is perfect.

[DavidR]

What the individual shields do for the user is that it gives more unique configuration in the Expert settings of the shields that have expert settings (the Network Shield doesn’t and there is perhaps a case for to have them.

Group them into some sort of super shield and you either lose that individual configuration or you have to add the extra complexity (more levels) into the so called super shield.

Me I’m all for the individual/ease of configuration that has made avast one of the most configurable AVs around.

[system]

@RejZoR post:29

Actually i think avast! team is trying to make Auto Sandbox in direction of automatically executing the program after analysis. Maybe not just yet but i can tell you whole thing is going into that direction, to make it as transparent as possible. The “Continue executing” button directly on Auto Sandbox analysis popup proves that quite nicely…

So does that mean that 'continue execution don’t sandbox any file? Why call it autosandbox then. It was perfect before with execute in sandbox(recommended). At least more secure.

[Asyn]

For me the actual GUI is almost perfect as it is.
Also keep in mind that few users will sit and watch the GUI all day long…

[Lisandro]

@MikeBCda post:2

Nothing major jumps out at me in the main GUI, with one exception – I’d love to see the self-protection module added to the list of item options in the status-bar settings, so that its inactivity (typically from the user temporarily disabling it for one of several reasons) is included in the “not fully protected” warnings.

+1

@RejZoR post:10

Combine them into:

• File System Shield (basically just file system protection)
• Internet Shield (Mail, IM, P2P, Web Shield and Network Shield)
• Proactive Shield (Behavior Shield, Auto Sandboxing, WebRep, SiteCorrect)

It’s not bad. Actually, the user could be alarmed due to the number and complexity of the shields.

@RejZoR post:10

You also have to do something about registration system

+1 for an automated system.

@MikeBCda post:2

Make it clear with text or color coded icons that indicate if everything is connected and running.

I’d see users alarmed because temporary glitches in the cloud services show “disconnected” status.
Won’t it be better just to show the static setting “connected” that the user has in the configurations?

[DavidR]

@Tech post:39

@RejZoR post:10

Combine them into:

• File System Shield (basically just file system protection)
• Internet Shield (Mail, IM, P2P, Web Shield and Network Shield)
• Proactive Shield (Behavior Shield, Auto Sandboxing, WebRep, SiteCorrect)

It’s not bad. Actually, the user could be alarmed due to the number and complexity of the shields.

If you are concerned about complexity:
Group them into some sort of super shield and you either lose that individual configuration or you have to add the extra complexity (more levels) and more options into the so called super shield.

Since most of the shields have different/additional options (and none in the network shield) it would mean more options or different levels or areas relating to the different functionality of the combined shields. So grouping shields brings it own level of complexity.