After confirming with Marius, I've updated:
Votes so far:
1. 4 = +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +0 (Caty)
2. 2 = +1 (GD), +1 (Caty)
Thanks,
Caty
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
Hi Caty,
I don’t understand why you count Marius for 2 when he said:
"In that case I'm OK with version (1).”
Thanks
-Vincent
On 13 Jun 2016, at 13:17, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Votes so far:
1. 3 = +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +0 (Caty)
2. 3 = +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Caty)
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> Vincent, my understanding was that you had a certain preference, but
it's
> true that you didn't explicitly voted. In
this case I will try to count
> just the explicit (+/- 0,1) votes.
>
> Still (after going on the mails) I will consider formulations like
"vote",
> "preferred", "favor",
"OK" - although I might be wrong, since
otherwise is
> hard to translate the feedback received in
votes. Would be ideal if
people
> would vote explicitly.
>
> So, votes so far:
> 1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +0 (Caty)
> 2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Caty)
> 3. +1 (GL), -1 (Caty)
>
> Hope I didn't do mistakes, otherwise state them and we will correct the
> vote.
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs