8 Jun
2016
8 Jun
'16
2:25 p.m.
Hi,
On 08 Jun 2016, at 13:50, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Votes so far on layout:
1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb)
2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent)
That’s not correct. I haven’t voted yet and I never said that the tree shouldn’t be
there.
I just highlighted pros and cons of each :)
+1 to 1 because:
- This is the option that shows clearly the concept of page hierarchy to users
- Admins can then choose to keep it, only keep the AppBar (workgroup flavor-style) or only
keep the Tree (documentation flavor-style)
- This is about the default flavor which is generic. When we introduce more flavors in the
future, those flavors can favor a different panel organization depending what’s best for
them
Thanks
-Vincent
3. +1 (GL)
After more discussions the vote swifted towards:
1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +0 (Vincent)
2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent)
3. +1 (GL)
My preference goes to 2.
I vote for 2 since I believe that the Tree is already in the Breadcrumb,
and the breadcrumb is introduced by the Tour.
I vote for 2 since we have scalability issues that I believe they will pose
some problems on the long run for the users.
The only advantage var 1 has is that it displays the tree from the start to
the user. But after a time the user will be 'forced' to configure its wiki
and remove it.
Each time the user will install a new app, both the Appbar and the Tree
will increase in size.
I like much more the classic AppBar navigation pattern and I think XWiki's
greater strength is in applications.
We are lacking now multiple flavors that could showcase both the KB and
Groupware cases, but if I were to choose a default, that would be
Groupware.
So on V1 I will be +0, but definitely -1 on V3.
Votes so far:
1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +0 (Vincent), +0 (Caty)
2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +1 (Caty)
3. +1 (GL), -1 (Caty)
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd(a)cjdns.fr> wrote:
> I disagree with this point, as a user of web interfaces I don't care if
> they look completely busted as long as I can make use of them, even if they
> become unusable in 5% of the situations, that's 95% where I can use them.
>
> Granted if we ship something that looks broken it's an embarassement but
> if we ship something that a person cannot navigate then we don't even have
> them complaining at us, they just become another silent non-adopter.
>
>
> On 08/06/16 11:01, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
>
>> So I think version (1) looks good but it doesn't scale with what we have
>> right now. Thus I'm more in favour of solution (2), at least until we can
>> resize the panel width.