24 Sep
2014
24 Sep
'14
10:49 a.m.
Hi,
Depends who is our main focus: normal users or content gardeners?
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).
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.
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.
----
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.
The argument that there are not that many languages in the wild is hard to
quantify, since we are missing user statistics.
---
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.
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.
Thanks,
Caty
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> 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> wrote:
we
).
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9512?focusedCommentId=77895&page=com…
multilingual
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
with
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguage…
_______________________________________________
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
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 <manuel(a)xwiki.com> 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> wrote:
>
> > 2014-08-21 11:00 GMT+02:00 vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net>et>:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 > 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
> > >
> > >
>
> >
> >
> > > > 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 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 > > 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
an
Interface
> > > > > extension.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
> > > > > valicac(a)gmail.com> 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
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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