30 Sep
2015
30 Sep
'15
11:06 a.m.
Hi Denis,
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
requested
That's not fully true, since you have the breadcrumb. What I do not like,
is that it looks first as an error page, then propose a way out. IMO those
"empty" node are not errors, just nodes without content, just there for
supporting their children.
Ok, I hadn't understood that the breadcrumb would still be shown.
also
I see. Indeed, this could work.
Thanks,
Guillaume
exist
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Guillaume Lerouge
<guillaume(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
One use case I've thought of since yesterday: when you move a page within a
hierarchy without moving its children. For instance: say you have "A/B/C"
and "D/E/F", then you move "B" to the end of "D/E/F" without
moving B's
children. You end up with "D/E/F/B".
However, you probably still want to have something where "B" used to be in
"A/B/C", but with no content in there. Thus the need.
Hi Denis,
thanks for your message. Please see my thoughts below.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I am opening this discussion to move the discussion started in an issue
> (XWIKI-12628) to its proper place, the ML. (Discussing into JIRA is
very
> bad since it lower the audience, we tend to
have done it too much
> recently).
>
> So the issue is that, in the Nested Document concept, we can create
> children to inexistent (WebHome) page. This introduce some
abnormalities:
-
Administering inexistent page (including page rights, see
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12629)
- Children of inexistent page (see
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12628
)
Since we agree that having nodes in the tree of pages is fine without
having the intermediate document created,
I know that's what has been decided so far, but I was wondering what was
the rationale behind it? Is there a specific benefit that comes from
allowing this behavior? we definitely need to better show
this concept to the final user. It would be a pain to explain to a user
that access rights for page children of an inexistent page is
administrable
from that inexistent page. It is also very poor
when you navigate from
the
> breadcrumb to a inexistent page as a normal user to reach "The page
could not be found." with no way to navigate further.
Agreed.
These inexistent page are not necessarily invisible, there are links to
them, and showing that as "error" page
looks inappropriate IMO.
Agreed.
So there are probably a couple of things we could
do to improve this:
A) display the list of children in addition to the actual message
As you point out below, this doesn't fully solve the navigation problem
since you can only go down, not further up. B) display a
"default" and nice (not an error) dashboard on them that
allow
every
navigation (with a button for those that can
edit, to create the page)
C) create them all the time, with the dashboard above by default
To me, B) and C) are almost the same in the end, though I'm not sure a
dashboard is best. I'd rather create an empty page, with the list of
children available from the menu and/or in a tab in the footer, as on other standard page.
> D) do not propose links to those page in the breadcrumb to users
without
edit
right on them ?
How would you then display the breadcrumb? With holes in it? It would make the breadcrumb inconsistent with the URL.
All I was proposing here is to remove the link, not the text, so you cannot
click on them to reach them. I agree, this is far from a perfect solution,
but since we have the Sibling viewer, it is not really breaking the
navigability of the site. I was just suggesting here a way that limit the
situation where a normal user reach those page, that could also be seen as
useless to reach (else the user should had create it). Any other place with
a link to those page should be treated the same. So only user with the
ability to really act on those pages (administering or creating them) will
have link to access them.
> E) ... (please add more idea)
>
> I am in favor of B) currently, since I do not think we are in an
"error"
> case like A) seems to expose.
> I am wondering if D) could be useful as well to limit navigation to
those
page or
not for user that will not find them so useful... but it may
exists
opposite UC.
WDYT ?
I think my favorite one is C). I don't really like having pages that from a rights management and hierarchy standpoint
but not from a content
standpoint - but maybe there's a good reason for this that I'm missing?
Thanks,
Guillaume
--
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs