FlowFuse
Feedback on FlowFuse and Node-RED #4553
Replies: 24 comments 15 replies
-
|
@JmStawikowski thank you so much for your feedback. I'd love the opportunity to discuss this feedback with you more, to better understand your frustrations and work out areas we can improve the user experience of FlowFuse. Is this something you'd be open to? If so, please do schedule a call with me on https://calendly.com/joepavitt/zoom-30 Also happy to dive deeper here on the feedback if that would be preferred. Thanks, Joe Pavitt |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hello Joe,
Thank you for your message and your openness to discuss my feedback.
While I appreciate the offer to schedule a call, I would prefer to continue
our conversation via email, as my English is not very strong for real-time
discussions. I feel more comfortable expressing myself in writing, which
will allow me to share my thoughts more clearly.
I am happy to provide any additional details or clarification via email to
help improve the FlowFuse experience.
Thank you again for your understanding.
At the time, I promoted and advocated for Node-RED within my company (
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stawikowski/) because its simplicity,
intuitiveness, and power made it an essential tool for IT/OT convergence
and IoT.
However, with FlowFuse, I have encountered issues that diminish its
usability. The interface feels less intuitive, and the navigation requires
too many steps to perform simple tasks, such as reopening the Node-RED
editor. These extra steps lead to inefficiency, which contrasts with the
smooth experience offered by Node-RED.
Look at a tool like Portainer.io (https://www.portainer.io/), which is more
powerful for deployment and offers a flawless user experience. Why not take
inspiration from a user experience that is simple, logical, and efficient?
For example, why not open the Node-RED editor in a tab in Chrome or Web
Browser
[image: image.png]
This approach would allow for a clear separation between the FlowFuse
software and the Node-RED software. It would be an approach based on
microservices deployed by Docker, and we could imagine a user experience
similar to that of microservices, where each tab would become a
container—one for FlowFuse and one for Node-RED.
[image: image.png]
[image: image.png]
[image: image.png]
[image: image.png]
Best regards,
Le mar. 24 sept. 2024 à 14:18, Joe Pavitt ***@***.***> a
écrit :
… @JmStawikowski <https://github.com/JmStawikowski> thank you so much for
your feedback. I'd love the opportunity to discuss this feedback with you
more, to better understand your frustrations and work out areas we can
improve the user experience of FlowFuse. Is this something you'd be open to?
If so, please do schedule a call with me on
https://calendly.com/joepavitt/zoom-30
Also happy to dive deeper here on the feedback if that would be preferred.
Thanks,
Joe Pavitt
Head of UX & Design, FlowFuse
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4553 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZGUOIK3BIQEVRR5W2BOT3ZYFKAPAVCNFSM6AAAAABOYERUTCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTANZTHAZTMMY>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@JmStawikowski It looks like you replied to the email here, so the images have been lost, could you please use the web interface to edit them back in please. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If you click on the link next to the Editor label in the Info box it will open in a new tab |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The problem is not opening Node-RED, but closing it. It doesn't make sense because when you want to close Node-RED, you actually close FlowFuse. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
No problem at all. Happy to converse in this public forum on the discussion board, as it's useful and important for other users to see this too.
You're not the first person to recommend this as inspiration, so thank you for sharing that.
That is we used to have the Node-RED Editor available. A couple of months ago we introduced the "Immersive Editor", which shows the Node-RED Editor, and the FlowFuse options/panel as a hidable tray at the bottom as you've shared in your screenshots. A lot of the value that FlowFuse adds is around the management around the flow building, e.g. Static Asset Management, Capturing Snapshots, and easier access to inspect the underlying Node-RED logs. All of these are available in the tabs, and are easier accessed with the tray alongside your Editor. When we had the Editor opening in a new tab, we had feedback from users that they were having to jump between browser tabs too much, and so, we created the Immersive Editor view instead. The tray can also be hidden at any time by clicking either of the red buttons shown here: 
If you do want the tray removed entirely, then the blue button will do that, and would open the editor in a new browser tab. Worth noting the button circled in the middle of the screen does only show when hovering over the tray (@cstns can we fix this and always show? I think that's a sensible move to show all the time) Just so we have a clearer picture of what you're trying to achieve with FlowFuse too, can I ask a few questions:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'll handle it in #4564 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
On the homepage of FlowFuse, we do have the ability to jump straight to your Editor with the "Open Editor" button for the instance listed. Shown on the right in the above screenshot.
When you're clicking back, you should get returned to the FlowFuse UI? Is that not the case? What would you find is the logical step here? I'm assuming given the other feedback, you're intuitively closing the browser tab when you're finished in the editor, and so, with that, you're losing the FlowFuse session too? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
And how do you exit Node-RED besides closing the tab? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You can go "back", whether in the browser, or using the left-arrow in the FlowFuse tray. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The problem is that we have two ways to open a Node-RED editor and two different solutions for exiting it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree this is confusing. We have the full-screen Editor mode, and the "Immersive Editor". We are steering towards unifying our experiences to the Immersive Editor, such that this will be the view you're consistently presented with. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
When the user experience becomes complicated, the user is lost. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Agree entirely, and that's why we're very grateful for your feedback here. Want to understand the confusion, your use cases, and be sure we're optimising as much as possible. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for your response and your commitment to improving the user experience. Thank you again for your attention, and I look forward to seeing the upcoming improvements! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@JmStawikowski just to follow up on this a little, so we can get a good idea of your expectations and use case:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hello,
In fact, I do a similar job to yours. I don't develop applications for
end-users, but I create development tools, particularly those embedded in
our edge servers. That's why I've promoted Node-Red, Docker, MQTT brokers,
as well as device managers like Portainer. I'm also looking into the
FlowFuse tool. I loved the user experience of Node-Red and Portainer, but I
still think the FlowFuse interface is too complex for deploying simple
applications on devices. My first encounter with FlowFuse was not
intuitive. Cordialement
Le mer. 25 sept. 2024, 16:58, Joe Pavitt ***@***.***> a
écrit :
… @JmStawikowski <https://github.com/JmStawikowski> just to follow up on
this a little, so we can get a good idea of your expectations and use case:
- What are the main use cases you have for Node-RED?
- What prompted you to trying out FlowFuse? What problems were you
having that you hoped FF would help solve?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4553 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZGUOM7NQRHARYIX7WVMZDZYLFQDAVCNFSM6AAAAABOYERUTCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTANZVGI3DMNA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @JmStawikowski - so to clarify, the main use case you're looking to achieve with FlowFuse is deploying (Node-RED) applications to Edge Devices? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My main use case is indeed to easily deploy Node-RED applications on
devices.
Le mer. 25 sept. 2024, 17:19, Joe Pavitt ***@***.***> a
écrit :
… Thanks @JmStawikowski <https://github.com/JmStawikowski> - so to clarify,
the main use case you're looking to achieve with FlowFuse is deploying
(Node-RED) applications to Edge Devices?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4553 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZGUOOKJFVU4F5CLSGF243ZYLIAPAVCNFSM6AAAAABOYERUTCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTANZVGI4TEMQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Context: In our recent exchanges, I expressed concerns regarding navigation in FlowFuse, particularly with the Node-RED editor. The current interface, which integrates the "Immersive Editor," has been criticized for its lack of fluidity. It requires too many steps to return to the main screen, and I noticed that clicking the back arrow often leads to the accidental closure of Node-RED, which also shuts down FlowFuse. This situation contrasts with the ease of use found in Node-RED, which is one of its main strengths. Response: I believe the solution would be to open the Node-RED editor in the same way for instances and devices, that is, consistently in a new browser tab. This would help maintain the simplicity of using Node-RED while avoiding accidental closures or unnecessary returns. Personally, I am convinced that this would make navigation more intuitive, with fewer intermediate steps, and improve the fluidity between FlowFuse and the editor. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @JmStawikowski - this is how we used to have it, but we had many users complaining that it became annoying to manage two separate tabs, hence we made the Immersive Editor (not currently supported with Devices). Out actual plan (implementing now) is that the view you have on the left side won't exist at all, and that when you click to access your instances from the maai menu, you're immediately navigated to the immersive editor, with the FlowFuse options/tray at the bottom as per your right-screenshot. What would your thoughts be on this? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for your reply. I understand that you wanted to simplify the user experience by avoiding the management of two separate tabs, especially if this has been a source of frustration for many users. However, I am skeptical about the complete removal of the current view, particularly by making the FlowFuse home menu disappear so that Node-RED can integrate into the screen. The idea of being immediately directed to the immersive editor, with the FlowFuse options at the bottom, may seem convenient, but it resembles a "Russian doll" effect in the user experience. Instead of simplifying navigation, this could create additional layers to manage within a single interface. Furthermore, the fact that the immersive editor is not supported with devices raises concerns about the universality of the user experience. For those of us who regularly work with devices, this could lead to confusion and limitations. I believe it would be more beneficial to retain the idea of tabs, which allow for clear and fluid navigation. This is similar to the use of Docker containers: each container has its own tasks and can be managed independently while remaining in a cohesive environment. By keeping separate tabs for instances and devices, we could better manage different workflows without sacrificing simplicity and intuitiveness. If everything is integrated into a single view by eliminating the home menu, this risks making the interface cluttered and less intuitive. I fear that this approach may lead to setbacks and frustrations, especially for users who are accustomed to navigating easily between these two elements. I would therefore like to understand how you plan to address these concerns. How do you intend to ensure that the user experience remains smooth and intuitive with this new approach? Have you considered ways to facilitate navigation between instances and devices, so that users do not feel lost in this nested interface? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We are reviewing our application hierarchy at the moment to reduce this, as the feeling of "being lost" is certainly something that has come up before with other users. I do understand your points about the Russian Doll effect, it's a good analogy. The primary driver of the Immersive Editor is to permit user's access to "Snapshots", "Assets", "Node-RED Logs" and the "Actions", all without leaving the Node-RED Editor each time. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
After all, for me, there is no difference in the user experience between a Node-RED editor that opens an instance and a Node-RED editor that opens a device. In both cases, it is the standard Node-RED editor, which is also available as a Docker container, which represents a huge advantage in terms of user experience. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, absolutely agree here, and we are working hard to make them consistent. The technical reality is that they are very different under the covers, so it's not a simple switch we can trigger in order to make them consistent, but please know that is our objective here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I believe that the tabbed approach is much simpler and more universal for user experience. Furthermore, it is more modular with architectures based on microservices and Docker containers. For me, a good user experience can be summarized as follows: a web application = a Docker container = a browser tab. For example, one container for FlowFuse and another for Node-RED. This simplifies the developer's work. Often, we forget the cost of development, especially regarding maintenance. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For me, a good user experience can be summarized as follows: a web application = a Docker container = a browser tab. For example, one container for FlowFuse and another for Node-RED. This simplifies the developer's work. Often, we forget the cost of development, especially regarding maintenance. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks @JmStawikowski - to summarise your biggest frustration though, it seems that it's related to the fact the "Open Editor" button doesn't open in a new tab by default? It's worth noting the buttons support native browser I appreciate that's not the easiest option, as the default click remains in the same browser session, but the general feedback we have had from our users, especially around access to Assets, Snapshots, Restarting Actions, etc. is that they want them in the same tab at the Instance/Node-RED Editor, hence that is our default. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
No, that's not my request. My issue is that you merged the Node-RED application into the FlowFuse application, whereas the two should have remained separate. These are two distinct applications that should correspond to two different web tabs. By merging them, you've significantly complicated the user experience by trying to combine two applications into one. This has also made development and support more complex, not just for Node-RED but especially for FlowFuse. What I don't understand is that you initially had a modular architecture with two separate applications, like two components that could communicate via URLs or message buses. Now, you've created an embedded architecture, which inevitably leads to an embedded user experience. This is where things get complicated for users: we no longer have the clear and simple Node-RED experience, and we're faced with a complex and cluttered FlowFuse web application. I believe you have broken the standard practices for web applications, especially regarding the user experience. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The Node-RED Editor is exactly the same though? It has not changed? We merged them, in terms of UX because our customers asked us to. We listened to the feedback (as we are doing with you now), and actioned that accordingly. Users were frustrated that the additional features that FlowFuse brings to the table were too separate from the Node-RED Editor. Getting frustrated that they kept having to switch between tabs. Hence the introduction of the tray of FlowFuse options. This tray can still be hidden (clicking the down arrow) and you have the exact same Node-RED experience you're used to. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For me, a good user experience can be summarized as follows: a web application = a browser tab ! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I understand your point of view and thank you for these clarifications. However, I disagree with this merger approach, and here's why:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Here's the translation in English: I understand your explanation, but I remain convinced that keeping Node-RED and FlowFuse as two separate applications would be a better approach, and here's why:
In summary, I believe that returning to two separate applications would not only simplify development and maintenance but also offer a better user experience in the long run. This would allow FlowFuse to focus on its unique strengths while benefiting from Node-RED's existing stability and popularity. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'll give you a concrete example from my past experience. I used the software Portainer.io to deploy Node-RED applications, which are two separate web applications (Portainer.io and Node-RED). Each application runs independently, each in its own tab, and I encountered no user experience issues when switching between them. I believe that users are already very accustomed to using tabs to navigate the web, which makes this approach natural and seamless. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Just to offer more insight here, from an architecture point of view, everything Node-RED instance is completely separate from FlowFuse. The Node-RED deployments have no influence from FlowFuse at all. The rendering of the Editor in the User Interface is rendered as an So, to your other points:
These aren't impacted at all. The Node-RED deployments are completely independent from FlowFuse. We've just unified the editing experience in front-end code only in order to offer the enhancements in FF that our users have asked for. No impact on performance, scalability, etc.
You still have this option today. FlowFuse is an additional deployment option for Node-RED. You can still deploy Node-RED via Docker, without FlowFuse. FlowFuse is built as a management platform for Node-RED, and so with that, offers bespoke features that enhance that experience (e.g. Static Asset Management, Snapshots, Remote Deployments). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Okay, I understand the use of an iframe, that's the information I was missing. So, in fact, there's no problem with having an option that would allow us to switch from an iframe mode to a tab mode, and vice versa. That would be great and it would effectively validate that the two web applications are indeed separate, or at least configure the mode at startup (iframe/tab). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Glad we are on the same page now! On the Immersive Editor on the right of the tray there is an "Open in New Tab" option. The team and I are discussing how we could modify the "Open Editor" button too in order to allow this option as a default |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Feedback on FlowFuse and Node-RED
Hello,
First of all, I want to express my gratitude for the incredible work you’ve done with Node-RED. It’s an outstanding tool that has revolutionized the way I connect hardware devices, APIs, and online services. Its simplicity, intuitiveness, and power have made it an essential tool in numerous projects I’ve completed.
That said, I would like to share my frustration with FlowFuse, which builds on the solid foundation of Node-RED but, unfortunately, doesn’t meet my expectations in terms of user experience.
For example, the screen navigation in FlowFuse is not very intuitive. The interface lacks fluidity, particularly for common tasks like opening the Node-RED editor. There are too many intermediate steps required to return to the main screen. One often has to click the back arrow, which doesn’t feel logical, and this frequently results in accidentally closing Node-RED, which in turn shuts down FlowFuse. This is in stark contrast to the simplicity of Node-RED, which remains one of its greatest strengths.
I understand that FlowFuse aims to add additional functionalities around Node-RED for more complex environments (collaboration, multi-device management, etc.), but I’m disappointed with how these features are currently implemented.
I’d like to know if there are improvements planned in the near future, particularly to enhance the deployment speed and improve the clarity of workflows within FlowFuse. In the meantime, I remain a loyal user of Node-RED, which, in my opinion, continues to outperform FlowFuse in terms of efficiency.
Thank you for taking the time to read this feedback, and congratulations again on the incredible impact of Node-RED within the IoT community.
Best regards,
Objet : Retour d’expérience sur FlowFuse et Node-RED
Bonjour,
Tout d’abord, je tiens à exprimer ma gratitude pour l’incroyable travail que vous avez accompli avec Node-RED. C’est un outil remarquable qui a révolutionné ma manière de connecter des appareils matériels, des API et des services en ligne. Sa simplicité, son intuitivité et sa puissance en ont fait un outil indispensable dans de nombreux projets que j’ai réalisés.
Cela dit, je souhaite partager ma frustration concernant FlowFuse, qui s’appuie sur la solide base de Node-RED mais qui, malheureusement, ne répond pas à mes attentes en termes d’expérience utilisateur.
Par exemple, la navigation dans FlowFuse n’est pas très intuitive. L’interface manque de fluidité, notamment pour des tâches courantes comme l’ouverture de l’éditeur Node-RED. Il y a trop d’étapes intermédiaires pour revenir à l’écran principal. Il faut souvent cliquer sur la flèche de retour, ce qui n’est pas très logique, et cela entraîne fréquemment la fermeture accidentelle de Node-RED, ce qui ferme également FlowFuse. Cela contraste fortement avec la simplicité de Node-RED, qui reste l’un de ses plus grands atouts.
Je comprends que FlowFuse vise à ajouter des fonctionnalités supplémentaires autour de Node-RED pour des environnements plus complexes (collaboration, gestion multi-appareils, etc.), mais je suis déçu de la manière dont ces fonctionnalités sont actuellement mises en œuvre.
J’aimerais savoir s’il est prévu des améliorations dans un futur proche, notamment pour améliorer la vitesse de déploiement et la clarté des workflows au sein de FlowFuse. En attendant, je reste un utilisateur fidèle de Node-RED, qui, à mon avis, continue de surpasser FlowFuse en termes d’efficacité.
Merci d’avoir pris le temps de lire ce retour, et encore félicitations pour l’impact incroyable de Node-RED au sein de la communauté IoT.
Cordialement,
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions