6 Oct
2015
6 Oct
'15
5:12 p.m.
Results for now:
1.1: -0 (me), -1 (Jean), -1 (Yacine)
1.2: +1 (me), -0 (Jean), +1 (Caty), +1 (Yacine)
1.3: 0 (me), +1 (Jean), +0 (Yacine), +1 (Guillaume Lerouge).
So 1.1 is out.
We still have 1.2 = 2 (me and Caty are the only binding votes) and 1.3 = 1
(Jean is only the binding vote).
It's a bit short to take a decision. Please vote!
2015-10-05 16:18 GMT+02:00 Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com>gt;:
For the record, the users that don't have delete
and admin right on
the current document (i.e. the users that are neither administrators
nor the creator of the current document), which is the most common use
case I think, will have only the Copy entry in the Actions menu with
1.2. In other words, most of the users will see a menu with only one
entry.
Thanks,
Marius
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
<gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
Hi.
With 7.2, the content menus have changed a lot. The pain point is that we
have a too much crowded "more actions" menu.
Some discussions have already been done on this jira issue:
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12587
Caty have created a design page to re-organize the menus:
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization
I'm in favor of the solution 1.2.
So:
* -0 for solution 1.1 since the viewers are not what we use the most
(thanks to the extra tabs on the bottom) and it gives them too much
importance
* +1 for solution 1.2, even if we might encounter some difficulties
saying
if an item is a base action or an advanced one.
* 0 for option A (too much clicks), but on the other hand I don't have an
alternative to propose.
* +1 for option B. The jira issue is already created (
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12636) and I think nobody would be
opposed to this.
* +0 for option C. The browser already have this ability, and yes, it
implies the hiding of the panels (thanks to some CSS we have). However, I
remember a client using this feature for a convoluted use-case: include a
light wiki page in an other website via an iframe. Anyway, we could still
keep the viewer but remove the link.
* +1 for D. I know that security through obscurity is not the best, but
it
disturbs me to let an access to the source code
of any wiki page,
including
not-well-done applications created by users.
Thanks,
Guillaume
--
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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs