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) <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
On 08 Jun 2016, at 13:50, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs