Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Interface and Content Language Separation

1 Oct 2014

Hi Guillaume,

I didn't found it  just because I saw this as a bug, not an improvement.
Sorry for the noise,

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote:

...
  Hi Denis.

 Actually there is http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-10745 that I have
 committed yesterday on master. I will backport it to the 6.2.x branch today
 and so we will have it for 6.2.2.

 Thanks,

 2014-10-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt;lu>:

  Hi,

 After seeing that 6.2.1 still doesn't have any clean display for  languages,
  please do what you want but do something about
it. Now, I will fear
 discussing such topics, when I see the end result. (Sorry if what I say
 seems hard, I know you have made a huge job adapting Flamingo, and you
 should be congratulated for that anyway)

 Thanks,

 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
 valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

  Hi,

 Depends who is our main focus: normal users or content gardeners?

 Is there really such a distinction on a collaborative wiki ? I do not
 think so ! Everyone is expected to be a contributor.

> As an user of a multi-language site you just care if the site is  available
 > in your language. After you made the initial
interface language  selection,
 >> you wish to have the content displayed in the same language, or  fallback
  >> on
 >> a 'neutral' language (while mentioning that the 'preferred'
language  is
  >> not
 >> available).
 >>
 >
 > I do not really agree here either, but it could be a default.  Personally,
   I use
english interface but I would like to see content in french when
 available :)

> A normal user does not care that a certain page has x translations or  that
 >> the interface is in 30 languages, except when doing the initial
 >> preference.
 >> This could be set also from User Profile.
 >>
 >
 > Are we talking about UI language, or content language. For UI  language, I
   fully
agree with you.

> As a content gardener (content manager) I want to know what languages  are
 >> missing in order to add them. But this info can be (and it is)  displayed
  >> in
 >> the edit mode.
 >
 >
 > ... in the edit mode, should I really need to open the editor to see a
 > missing translation. It is even worse than 2.2 :)
 >
 > But, this is not my point. If you look at OSX for example, you may  choose
   a
complete list of language, in your order of preference, and the  fallback
 > should follow that list. So if you care about serving, what you called
 > "normal user", you need the same kind of preference...
 > ...or you may serve all users by simply better displaying what is
 > available ! This also remove the need for differentiating normal and
 > gardeners.
 >
 >
 >> ----
 >>
 >> The 'easy' solution as you said is to make it configurable. And we
 kind
  of
 > do this when we don't reach an agreement.
IMO it's good and is bad,  since
   the code
and the testing gets split, so I hope we reach a conclusion.

 You seems to forget quite quickly about our past. We use to have a list  of
 > links for years now, so we are talking about a major change for  existing
  > users.
 >
 >
 >>
 >> The argument that there are not that many languages in the wild is  hard
  to
 >> quantify, since we are missing user statistics.
 >>
 >
 > While we do not have statistics, we have client, and we also have  users,
   and I do
not remember seeing big complaints about the way it works
 currently.

>
> ---
>
> Another place where we could display the language information in the
> expanded state (2.1) could be near the Tags area or in the Document
> Information.
> I prefer the select approach (2.2) because the location is highly  visible
 >> and we don't want to capture the user's attention on an information he
 >> might not need at all.
 >>
 >
 > Basically, I agree with you about the importance of the information.
 > However, where you seems to always see a cumbersome list of links, I  see
  a
  short list of links most of the time. This is not
a matter of not  choosing,
 > it is only to answer very exceptional cases, where scalability became  an
  > issue. To compare, do you think that a
button labelled "Brazilian
 > Portuguese" is more or less cumbersome than the list "EN | FR |
PT-BR"  ?
  > Remember that we could display only
available translations, and unless  we
  > do a remake of Wikipedia, most of the time,
there will not be that  many.
  > What I propose, is not to don't reach a
conclusion, is to provide best  of
  > both world !
 >
 >
 >> That's why if you really want to put them as list of links, maybe we 
can
    change the location and present them more as
metadatas.

 It is not metadata, you miss my point. What I say is that
 switching/managing a small list of language is far better served by a  list
 > of link then a menu. IMO, this will be the most used case, and the  large
  > list will be the exception.
 >
 >
 >>
 >> Thanks,
 >> Caty
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; 
wrote:
  >>
 >> > Hi Cathy,
 >> >
 >> > I would like to add a remark to your conclusion which is very 
centric
  on
 > > the 2.2 solutions.
> >
> > The main complaints that have been said about 2.1 solution were
> > scalability, and the fear that too much languages could clutter the
> > interface, which is true at some point. However, GL mention the fact
> that
> > it is really rare to have more than five languages. I also mention  that
 > 2.2
> > solution require more click to switch language.
> >
> > I would like to add that 2.1 is nearer to what we have actually, so  2.2
 >> > could be seen as an important change for existing users. A change 
that
  > >
could be seen as less ergonomic. Switching between just two language
> with
> > 2.2 is really boring compare to the same task with 2.1.
> >
> > The scalability issue should not drive alone the decision. There is  also
 >> > another aspect of between 2.1 and 2.2 that should be considered. 
With
  > 2.2,
> > you do not see at a glance, what are the available translations. Two  use
 > > case here: a) You have to click once to
discover that your expected
> > language is not available. b) while reviewing the site for  completeness,
 > > you need to click to know about
available translation for each  document.
 > >
> > Believe me, I have work for a long time in multilingual environment,  and
 > > unless your language usage is very
casual, single click switch and
> direct
> > view of available languages are far more comfortable than a menu  choice.
 >> >
 >> > So, since this is still a proposal and not a vote, I think that it 
is
  >> still
 >> > time to extends the proposal.
 >> > Why not implementing a mix of 2.1 (for easy of use, and "back
 >> > compatibility") and 2.2 (for scalability) depending on user
 >> configuration,
 >> > with a default based on the number of configured languages ?
 >> > It does not look that hard IMO, and could have the benefit of
 >> scalability
 >> > and usability at the same time.
 >> >
 >> > I hope other will reconsider their views, because this is an 
important
  >> > choice, and it could make a
differentiator for XWiki.
 >> > WDYT ?
 >> >
 >> >
 >> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
 >> > valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
 >> >
 >> > > Hi,
 >> > >
 >> > > These preferences were so hard to calculate since people didn't
 used
  > >
clean
> > > +/-0/1 voted or voted positively on multiple entries, so if I
> > misunderstood
> > > your vote please let me know.
> > >
> > > Reminder: Proposal available at
> > >
> > >
> >
> 

http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguage…
  >> > >
 >> > > __Short version__
 >> > >
 >> > > So the majority of the participants liked version 2.2 with some
 >> > discussion
 >> > > whether to choose variant 2.2.1 or 2.2.2.
 >> > >
 >> > > So the current votes are:
 >> > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea)
 (+1
  > >
Manu)
> > > (+1 Caty)
> > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu)
> > >
> > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+4) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +4
> > > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+2) } = +1
> > >
> > > If you want to change your vote or cast another vote, please reply 
to
 >> > this
 >> > > message. Until then, the winning solution is 2.2.1
 >> > >
 >> > >
 >> > >
 >> > > __Long version__
 >> > >
 >> > > Some conclusions:
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.1: (-0 Jean) (-1 Sergiu)
 >> > > ** 2.1.1: (+0 Jean) (+1 Denis) (+0 Silvia) (+0 Manu)
 >> > > ** 2.1.2: (+1 GL) (+0 Denis)
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.2: (+1 Jean) (+1 Sergiu)
 >> > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea)
 (+1
  >> > Manu)
 >> > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+1 Caty) (-1 Sergiu)
 >> > > ** 2.2.3: (+0 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) (+0 Manu)
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.3: (-0 Jean) (+/-0 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea)
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.4: (+0 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (-0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea)
 >> > >
 >> > > So this means:
 >> > >
 >> > > *  2.1:    { '1': (-1) (+0) } { '0': (-1) (+0) } = -1
 >> > > ** 2.1.1: { '1': (-0) (+1) } { '0': (-0) (+3) } = +1
 >> > > ** 2.1.2: { '1': (-0) (+1) } { '0': (-0) (+1) } = +1
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.2:     { '1': (-0) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+0) } = +2
 >> > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+3) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +3
 >> > > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+3) } { '0': (-0) (+1) } = +2
 >> > > ** 2.2.3: { '1': (-0) (+0) } { '0': (-0) (+3) } = 0
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.3:     { '1': (-0) (+0) } { '0': (-2) (+2) } = 0
 >> > >
 >> > > * 2.4:     { '1': (-1) (+0) } { '0': (-1) (+3) } = -1
 >> > >
 >> > > So the majority of the participants liked version 2.2 with some
 >> > discussion
 >> > > whether to choose variant 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. The votes were:
 >> > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea)
 (+1
  > >
Manu)
> > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+1 Caty) (-1 Sergiu)
> > >
> > > Adjustments:
> > >
> > > Since Segiu voted -1 on 2.2.2 we couldn't pick this version until
 the
 >> > > committer changes his vote, given the arguments.
 >> > >
 >> > > Given Sergiu's arguments I want to change my vote for 2.2.2 from
 +1
  >> -> +0
 >> > > and give variant 2.2.1 a +1 vote.
 >> > > My rationale behind this change is that:
 >> > > * initially I preferred using links to display the language in 
order
  >> to
 >> > be
 >> > > consistent with edit mode (language selection)
 >> > > * because of space constraints I believe is better to use a menu
 to
  >> > display
 >> > > them
 >> > > * since it's a menu, I agree it should have the standard menu
look
 >> > > * from an implementation point of view is easier to use the
 >> Bootstrap's
 >> > > menu component than to write a custom one for our case
 >> > >
 >> > > So the current votes are:
 >> > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea)
 (+1
  > >
Manu)
> > > (+1 Caty)
> > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu)
> > >
> > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+4) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +4
> > > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+2) } = +1
> > >
> > > If you want to change your vote or cast another vote, please reply 
to
 >> > this
 >> > > message. Until then, the winning solution is 2.2.1
 >> > >
 >> > > Thanks,
 >> > > Caty
 >> > >
 >> > >
 >> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Manuel Smeria
&lt;manuel(a)xwiki.com&gt;
 >> wrote:
 >> > >
 >> > > > Hello,
 >> > > >
 >> > > > I'm +1 for this proposal.
 >> > > >
 >> > > > I like 2.1.1, 2.2.1 & 2.2.3, but if I were to pick one
I'd go  with
  > >
2.2.1.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Manuel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie"
 Delhumeau <
 > > > > gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt;
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 2014-08-21 11:00 GMT+02:00 vincent(a)massol.net < 
vincent(a)massol.net
 >> >:
 >> > > > >
 >> > > > > >
 >> > > > > >
 >> > > > > >
 >> > > > > >
 >> > > > > > On 21 Aug 2014 at 10:57:36, Guillaume Louis-Marie
Delhumeau  (
  >> > > > > >
gdelhumeau@xwiki.com(mailto:gdelhumeau@xwiki.com)) wrote:
 >> > > > > >
 >> > > > > > > Hi
 >> > > > > > >
 >> > > > > > > 2014-08-21 9:58 GMT+02:00 Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) :
 >> > > > > > >
 >> > > > > > > > Hi,
 >> > > > > > > >
 >> > > > > > > > First of all we need to decide how prominent
we want  this
  >> > > > > > functionality
to
 >> > > > > > > > be.
 >> > > > > > > > I would make it more transparent, since
theoretically  you
  >> > should
 >> > > > > change
 >> > > > > > > > your language preference just once (in the
 Administration,
  >> and
 >> > > per
 >> > > > > > user)
 >> > > > > > > > and all the pages should be displayed
according to that
 >> > > preference.
 >> > > > > > This is
 >> > > > > > > > not something that need to be highly visible
and that  you
  >> would
 >> > > > > change
 >> > > > > > > > every day.
 >> > > > > > >
 >> > > > > > >
 >> > > > > > > It's not true on a public wiki (like
Wikipedia).
 >> > > > > >
 >> > > > > > That’s a good point, we need to agree which skin we’re
 >> discussing.
 >> > > > AFAIK
 >> > > > > > we’re discussing Flamingo which is NOT a public web
site  skin.
  > When
> > > we
> > > > > do a
> > > > > > public web site skin we would need to take this into
> consideration
> > > > > indeed.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To me Flamingo can be used for a public wiki (without the app
> bar),
> > > which
> > > > > has not the same meaning as "public website" which is
not
> necessary a
> > > > > "wiki" (see:
> > > > >
> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Leiothrix+Skin
> > ).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > -Vincent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO it's more important to be better displayed
when you
> want to
> > > > > > > > create a new translation, than when you read one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding the flag to represent languages you can
read  this
 > > > comment
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > additional information about why we wouldn't
do it like  that
 > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9512?focusedCommentId=77895&page=com…
  > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Caty
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Denis Gervalle
wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Cathy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2.1.1 is the one I prefer, 2.1.2 is also good
but the
> > > separation
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > language should be more clear, and it is less
easy to  see
 > the
> > > > > active
> > > > > > > > one. I
> > > > > > > > > have no fear about the scaling issue, even
heavily
> > multilingual
> > > > > site
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > those of the European Commission use such
enumeration
> without
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > Guillaume said, it is really rare to have
more than a  few
 >> > > > languages
 >> > > > > > > > anyway.
 >> > > > > > > > > Other proposal implies multiple
click/touch for the  same
  > >
> purpose,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > bad IMO for content. It is also important to
only  display
 >> > > > > effectively
 >> > > > > > > > > available languages, but with an enum,
it could be  also
  > good
> > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > option to also display unavailable one
greyed, so  language
 >> > keep
 >> > > > > their
 >> > > > > > > > > location on screen.
 >> > > > > > > > >
 >> > > > > > > > > Regarding the UI language, 1.1 is fine,
but maybe a  bit
  > >
large.
> > > > > Having
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > initial in the bar would be better IMO.
Having also a  more
 > > > fancy
> > > > > > > > solution,
> > > > > > > > > like what I have done with bluebird (see
 http://softec.lu
 > ),
> > > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > to have as well... or a easy way to customize
it that  way
 > > with
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > extension.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Ecaterina
Moraru
> (Valica) <
> > > > > > > > > valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-10745
> (Improve
> > > the
> > > > > > display
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > available languages in Flamingo) which
is related to
> > > > > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6402
(Separate
> > Interface
> > > > > > language
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > page language settings)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > While in Flamingo we could just make the
language  links
 > > look
> > > > > > better,
> > > > > > > > > > without changing the functionality, for
the future,  the
 > > > > > separation
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > something we might want to tackle,
that's why I've
> created
> > > this
> > > > > > > > proposal
> > > > > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguage…
  >> > > > > > > > >
>
 >> > > > > > > > > > I am interested in what you think
about the  variants.
    > > > > > > > > >
 > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
 > > > > > > > > > Caty
 > > > > >
 > > > > > _______________________________________________
 > > > > > 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
 > > >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > devs mailing list
 > > devs(a)xwiki.org
 > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
 > >
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > Denis Gervalle
 > SOFTEC sa - CEO
 > _______________________________________________
 > 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

 --
 Denis Gervalle
 SOFTEC sa - CEO

 --
 Denis Gervalle
 SOFTEC sa - CEO
 _______________________________________________
 devs mailing list
 devs(a)xwiki.org
 http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

 --
 Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
 Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
 Committer on the XWiki.org project
 _______________________________________________
 devs mailing list
 devs(a)xwiki.org
 http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- 
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Interface and Content Language Separation