29 May
2018
29 May
'18
6:15 p.m.
On 29 May 2018, at 18:11, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
you’re
So if the window has space, the buttons should be placed normally (
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/
IdeaVisibleSave/after10Full.png).
Maybe it's not a problem. We will see how we can implement it. Hope we
won't use JS to calculate the width.
Ah you mean a problem to implement it, not a problem from a design POV.
How is it different than the wiki or wysiwyg editor width for example?
It can also take the full width - padding for the middle column (DIV).
I really don’t see why we would need JS for that! :) (but I’m not an expert for sure)
Thanks
-Vincent
On 29 May 2018, at 18:00, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
Hi Caty,
> On 29 May 2018, at 17:23, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> Just to make sure we are on the same page since there were some
> ambiguities
>> on the proposal, I've put some screenshot on how it will look like:
>> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/
> IdeaVisibleSave#HProposal10.x
>
> Could you give some context to explain why we need a VOTE and what > asking to VOTE about?
>
> AFAIK there’s no need to VOTE on having Visible Save button since:
> * We already discussed and decided to implement visible save
> * It was already put twice in the roadmap and is currently in the 10.5
> roadmap (which is already started), and nobody complained
>
> So if your email is about bringing some variations to what was decided,
> it’s fine but why does it need a VOTE? A simple proposal would have been
> enough IMO.
>
>> This proposal extracts the save controls and puts them on a fixed
bottom
>> bar.
>
> Does it mean that the vertical space for the editor is constrained and
can
> never be larger than the viewport minus the
vertical space for the save
bar?
>
> Also on the http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/
> IdeaVisibleSave/after10.png screenshot the bar takes the full width but
> on the followings screenshots the bar doesn’t. What is proposed
precisely?
The save buttons are placed in a fixed bottom
bar, only if they get out
of
the view port (
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/
IdeaVisibleSave/after10.png).
I still don’t understand this. The only difference I see between mode
images is the width of the save bar.
My preference goes to not full width for the save bar, i.e. width of the
editor only.
Inline mode is more problematic because it has
panels (looks a bit
strange
to be full width, see
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/IdeaVisibleSave/
after10Inline2.png
). Ideally the buttons should be kept in the
container they refer to, so
in
xwiki content.
Yes I agree. Why is this a problem? Why not have the same width for the
visible bar than the container?
I made screenshots with how it would look on both
modes, but
depends on what we can actually implement. Don't have an ideal answer for
inline mode.
Why is http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/
IdeaVisibleSave/after10Inline.png a problem?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Could you explain what’s different between "Proposal for 9.x" and
>>> "Proposal for 10.x" on
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/
>>> IdeaVisibleSave#HProposal10.x
>>>
>>> I’ve checked quickly and I don’t see any difference visually.
>>>
>>>> There are some problems with the inline mode and with the responsive
>>>> versions.
>>>> With the inline version we could decide to keep the current
>>>> behavior and have the fixed bar only in Wiki and WYSIWYG modes. I guess
>>> we
>>>> should do some implementation tests and see what's possible.
>>>
>>> What problems?
>>>
>>> At this stage I can’t VOTE since I don’t know what’s the question and it
>>> seems to be missing some details (see my questions above).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>> PS: It’s sad that we are so late on the design of visible save since
> we’ve
>>> had months to plan this. It was already put in a roadmap at least 6
> months
>>> ago and then not finished and then put again in the roadmap several
> months
>>> ago. We could have had plenty of time to discuss/tune this. Now this
> means
>>> we are at risk of not finishing this for 10.5. Let’s hope we can catch
> up.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Caty