18 Mar
2016
18 Mar
'16
12:53 p.m.
Hi devs,
Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC + addition of some elements
of my own.
The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
So here’s a proposal:
* The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it doesn't contain
only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
** Information about the page (they're not actions): History, Comments/Annotations,
Children, Attachments
* The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be moved to the
information section
* The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more specific since the
whole section of the menu is about information about the page. It used to contain children
but that's been separated so all it contains now are included pages and backlinks.
These could be transformed into 2 viewers: one for includes pages and one for backlinks
* The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of the "More"
menu. We only display in the tabs the most important actions.
* Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we could decide to
remove the Information one and have "Included Pages" and "Backlinks"
only as menu entries.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
18 Mar
18 Mar
1:02 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we might
need to find a way to split it again (just like we did with copy, delete,
etc.)
That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages' and the
'Backlinks' viewers. I don't find them that useful and they are somehow
technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace Space
Index and also because we have the Children / Sibling mix.
I agree that View Source could be moved in Information.
Thanks,
Caty
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi devs,
Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC + addition
of some elements of my own.
The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
So here’s a proposal:
* The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it doesn't
contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
** Information about the page (they're not actions): History,
Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
* The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be moved to
the information section
* The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more specific since
the whole section of the menu is about information about the page. It used
to contain children but that's been separated so all it contains now are
included pages and backlinks. These could be transformed into 2 viewers:
one for includes pages and one for backlinks
* The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of the
"More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most important actions.
* Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we
could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included Pages" and
"Backlinks" only as menu entries.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
1:19 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we might
need to find a way to split it again (just like we did with copy, delete,
etc.)
That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages' and the
'Backlinks' viewers. I don't find them that useful and they are somehow
technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace Space
Index and also because we have the Children / Sibling mix.
The issue is that once you say that the menu displays “information about the page” it’s
not very logical to have an entry named “Information” any more (since there are others
information entries). It could be named “More Information” or “Extra Information" but
not “Information”.
I agree that View Source could be moved in
Information.
Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries?
Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs (menu_content.vm
and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for displaying the second part of the More
Actions menu is called shortcuts.vm and its first line is:
#if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras)
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC + addition
> of some elements of my own.
>
> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
>
> So here’s a proposal:
>
> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it doesn't
> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
> ** Information about the page (they're not actions): History,
> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be moved to
> the information section
> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more specific since
> the whole section of the menu is about information about the page. It used
> to contain children but that's been separated so all it contains now are
> included pages and backlinks. These could be transformed into 2 viewers:
> one for includes pages and one for backlinks
> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of the
> "More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most important actions.
> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we
> could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included Pages" and
> "Backlinks" only as menu entries.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
2:58 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
As mentioned on our previous chat, I see the 2nd section of More Actions as
a "viewers" section. It`s probably inspired also by the way they are
implemented (/view/Page?viewer=<name>)
Another way of looking at it would be to see the page as an object, where
the 2nd section of "More Actions" would be the "getter" methods.
Remember this proposal
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1…
? :)
Looking at it this way, allows "Information" to stay where it is, IMO, as
I`m also not a big fan of promoting the backlinks and included pages in the
menus. Also, remember that included pages is displayed in edit mode, in the
panel, which is, IMO, a better suited location anyway.
Thanks,
Eduard
On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we
might
need to find a way to split it again (just like
we did with copy, delete,
etc.)
That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages' and the
'Backlinks' viewers. I don't find them that useful and they are somehow
technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace Space
Index and also because we have the Children / Sibling mix.
The issue is that once you say that the menu displays “information about
the page” it’s not very logical to have an entry named “Information” any
more (since there are others information entries). It could be named “More
Information” or “Extra Information" but not “Information”.
I agree that View Source could be moved in
Information.
Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries?
Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs
(menu_content.vm and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for displaying
the second part of the More Actions menu is called shortcuts.vm and its
first line is:
#if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras)
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Caty
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC + addition
> of some elements of my own.
>
> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
>
> So here’s a proposal:
>
> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it doesn't
> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
> ** Information about the page (they're not actions): History,
> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be moved to
> the information section
> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more specific
since
> the whole section of the menu is about
information about the page. It
used
> to contain children but that's been
separated so all it contains now are
> included pages and backlinks. These could be transformed into 2 viewers:
> one for includes pages and one for backlinks
> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of the
> "More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most important actions.
> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we
> could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included Pages" and
> "Backlinks" only as menu entries.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3:05 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
On 18 Mar 2016, at 14:58, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
As mentioned on our previous chat, I see the 2nd section of More Actions as
a "viewers" section. It`s probably inspired also by the way they are
implemented (/view/Page?viewer=<name>)
Saying “viewer” (which is a technical term that I believe doesn’t mean anything to users)
or saying it contains “Information about the page” is the same thing. Saying “viewer” just
hides the semantic meaning.
On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we
might
need to find a way to split it again (just like
we did with copy, delete,
etc.)
That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages' and the
'Backlinks' viewers. I don't find them that useful and they are somehow
technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace Space
Index and also because we have the Children / Sibling mix.
The issue is that once you say that the menu displays “information about
the page” it’s not very logical to have an entry named “Information” any
more (since there are others information entries). It could be named “More
Information” or “Extra Information" but not “Information”.
Another way of looking at it would be to see the page
as an object, where
the 2nd section of "More Actions" would be the "getter" methods.
That’s even more technical. Remember that we’re talking users here ;)
Remember this proposal
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1…
? :)
Looking at it this way, allows "Information" to stay where it is, IMO, as
I`m also not a big fan of promoting the backlinks and included pages in the
menus. Also, remember that included pages is displayed in edit mode, in the
panel, which is, IMO, a better suited location anyway.
This is just hiding the fact that the links all contain information about the current
page. You can call it metadata, viewers or whatever you want it’s still about data (i.e.
information) of the current page. And since all other viewer links are also about this
there’s no reason to have one called with the generic name.
Basically what “information” means here is “all the other metadata for the page”.
But it’s not a big issue. We don’t need to be 100% logical in the UI.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Eduard
>
>> I agree that View Source could be moved in Information.
>
> Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries?
>
> Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs
> (menu_content.vm and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for displaying
> the second part of the More Actions menu is called shortcuts.vm and its
> first line is:
>
> #if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras)
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC + addition
>>> of some elements of my own.
>>>
>>> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
>>>
>>> So here’s a proposal:
>>>
>>> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it
doesn't
>>> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
>>> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
>>> ** Information about the page (they're not actions): History,
>>> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
>>> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be
moved to
>>> the information section
>>> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more
specific
> since
>>> the whole section of the menu is about information about the page. It
> used
>>> to contain children but that's been separated so all it contains now are
>>> included pages and backlinks. These could be transformed into 2 viewers:
>>> one for includes pages and one for backlinks
>>> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of the
>>> "More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most important
actions.
>>> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we
>>> could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included
Pages" and
>>> "Backlinks" only as menu entries.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
6:56 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
delete,
as
I was not referring to simple users here, just trying to present it to you
:)
...and this was a reminder on how it would look like if we would separate
these viewers, since it`s not the first time we`ve had this idea, hinting
that it`s a conclusion that is easy to reach, probably for simple users too.
Sure. Even so, I still find it relevant enough to have this ("Extra")
"Information" docextra/viewer/etc. since it can be useful to display
important stuff (specially to advanced users) that don`t really deserve a
dedicated view.
Examples of stuff I`d personally like to see in that tab:
- Document Programming Right status (advanced)
- Document Script Right status (advanced)
- Document displayed with sheet X? (advanced)
- Document lock status?
- etc.
Of course we can work on the naming if you like... tough it will be tough
to find a better name IMO :)
Thanks,
Eduard
On 18 Mar 2016, at 14:58, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we
> might
>> need to find a way to split it again (just like we did with copy, >> etc.)
>> That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages' and
the
>> 'Backlinks' viewers. I don't find them that useful and they are
somehow
>> technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace
Space
>> Index and also because we have the
Children / Sibling mix.
>
> The issue is that once you say that the menu displays “information about
> the page” it’s not very logical to have an entry named “Information” any
> more (since there are others information entries). It could be named
“More
Information” or “Extra Information" but not “Information”.
As mentioned on our previous chat, I see the 2nd section of More Actions a "viewers" section. It`s probably
inspired also by the way they are
implemented (/view/Page?viewer=<name>)
Saying “viewer” (which is a technical term that I believe doesn’t mean
anything to users) or saying it contains “Information about the page” is
the same thing. Saying “viewer” just hides the semantic meaning.
Another way of looking at it would be to see the
page as an object, where
the 2nd section of "More Actions" would be the "getter" methods.
That’s even more technical. Remember that we’re talking users here ;)
Remember this proposal
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1…
? :)
Looking at it this way, allows "Information" to stay where it is, IMO, as
I`m also not a big fan of promoting the backlinks and included pages in
the
menus. Also, remember that included pages is
displayed in edit mode, in
the
panel, which is, IMO, a better suited location
anyway.
This is just hiding the fact that the links all contain information about
the current page. You can call it metadata, viewers or whatever you want
it’s still about data (i.e. information) of the current page. And since all
other viewer links are also about this there’s no reason to have one called
with the generic name.
Basically what “information” means here is “all the other metadata for the
page”.
But it’s not a big issue. We don’t need to be 100% logical in the UI.
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks,
Eduard
>
>> I agree that View Source could be moved in Information.
>
> Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries?
>
> Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs
> (menu_content.vm and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for
displaying
> the second part of the More Actions menu is
called shortcuts.vm and its
> first line is:
>
> #if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras)
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC +
addition
>>> of some elements of my own.
>>>
>>> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
>>>
>>> So here’s a proposal:
>>>
>>> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it
doesn't
>>> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
>>> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
>>> ** Information about the page (they're not actions): History,
>>> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
>>> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be
moved
to
>>> the information section
>>> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more
specific
> since
>>> the whole section of the menu is about information about the page. It
> used
>>> to contain children but that's been separated so all it contains now
are
>>> included pages and backlinks. These
could be transformed into 2
viewers:
>>> one for includes pages and one for
backlinks
>>> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of
the
>>> "More" menu. We only
display in the tabs the most important actions.
>>> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we
>>> could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included
Pages"
and
>>> "Backlinks" only as menu
entries.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
9:23 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com
the
about
> As mentioned on our previous chat, I
see the 2nd section of More Actions
I was not referring to simple users here, just trying to present it to you
:)
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1…
...and this was a reminder on how it would look like if we would separate
these viewers, since it`s not the first time we`ve had this idea, hinting
that it`s a conclusion that is easy to reach, probably for simple users
too.
> > ? :)
> > > Looking at it this way,
allows "Information" to stay where it is, IMO,
as
> > I`m also not a big fan of promoting the backlinks and included pages in
> the
> > menus. Also, remember that included pages is displayed in edit mode, in
> the
> > panel, which is, IMO, a better suited location anyway.
> This is just hiding the fact that the
links all contain information about
> the current page. You can call it metadata, viewers or whatever you want
> it’s still about data (i.e. information) of the current page. And since
all
> Basically what “information” means
here is “all the other metadata for
the
> page”.
> But it’s not a big issue. We don’t
need to be 100% logical in the UI.
Sure. Even so, I still find it relevant enough to have this ("Extra")
"Information" docextra/viewer/etc. since it can be useful to display
important stuff (specially to advanced users) that don`t really deserve a
dedicated view.
Examples of stuff I`d personally like to see in that tab:
- Document Programming Right status (advanced)
- Document Script Right status (advanced)
- Document displayed with sheet X? (advanced)
- Document lock status?
- If it's terminal or not
On 18 Mar 2016, at 14:58, Eduard Moraru
<enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we
> might
>> need to find a way to split it again (just like we did with copy,
delete,
>>> etc.)
>>> That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages'
and >>> 'Backlinks' viewers. I
don't find them that useful and they are
somehow
>>
technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace
Space
>>> Index and also because we have the Children / Sibling mix.
>>
>> The issue is that once you say that the menu displays “information >> the page” it’s not very logical to have
an entry named “Information”
any
> more
(since there are others information entries). It could be named
“More
>> Information” or “Extra Information" but not “Information”.
>>
as
where
a "viewers" section. It`s probably
inspired also by the way they are
implemented (/view/Page?viewer=<name>)
Saying “viewer” (which is a technical term that I believe doesn’t mean
anything to users) or saying it contains “Information about the page” is
the same thing. Saying “viewer” just hides the semantic meaning.
> Another way of looking at it would be to see the page as an object, the 2nd
section of "More Actions" would be the "getter" methods.
That’s even more technical. Remember that we’re talking users here ;)
Remember this proposal
other viewer links are also about this there’s no
reason to have one
called
> with the generic name.
- etc.
Of course we can work on the naming if you like... tough it will be tough
to find a better name IMO :)
Thanks,
Eduard
moved
we
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Thanks
-Vincent
its
Thanks,
Eduard
>
>> I agree that View Source could be moved in Information.
>
> Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries?
>
> Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs
> (menu_content.vm and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for
displaying
>> the second part of the More Actions menu is called shortcuts.vm and > first
line is:
>
> #if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras)
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC +
addition
>>>> of some elements of my own.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
>>>>
>>>> So here’s a proposal:
>>>>
>>>> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it
doesn't
>>>> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
>>>> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
>>>> ** Information about the page (they're not actions): History,
>>>> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
>>>> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should
be to
>>>> the information section
>>>> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more
specific
>> since
>>>> the whole section of the menu is about information about the page.
It
> used
>>> to contain children but that's been separated so all it contains now
are
>>> included pages and backlinks. These
could be transformed into 2
viewers:
>>> one for includes pages and one for
backlinks
>>> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of
the
>>>> "More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most important
actions.
>>>> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI,
>>> could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included
Pages"
and
>>> "Backlinks" only as menu
entries.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
19 Mar
19 Mar
12:35 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Clarification about the "More Actions" menu + extradcos tabs
On 18 Mar 2016, at 21:23, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Sure. Even so,
I still find it relevant enough to have this ("Extra")
"Information" docextra/viewer/etc. since it can be useful to display
important stuff (specially to advanced users) that don`t really deserve a
dedicated view.
Examples of stuff I`d personally like to see in that tab:
- Document Programming Right status (advanced)
- Document Script Right status (advanced)
- Document displayed with sheet X? (advanced)
- Document lock status?
- If it's terminal or not - etc.
>
> Of course we can work on the naming if you like... tough it will be tough
> to find a better name IMO :)
>
> Thanks,
> Eduard
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that View Source could be moved in Information.
>>>>
>>>> Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries?
>>>>
>>>> Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs
>>>> (menu_content.vm and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for
>> displaying
>>>> the second part of the More Actions menu is called shortcuts.vm and
> its
>>>> first line is:
>>>>
>>>> #if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Caty
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC +
>> addition
>>>>>> of some elements of my own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here’s a proposal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu
since it doesn't
>>>>>> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links:
>>>>>> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share
>>>>>> ** Information about the page (they're not actions):
History,
>>>>>> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments
>>>>>> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and
should be
> moved
>> to
>>>>>> the information section
>>>>>> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made
more specific
>>>> since
>>>>>> the whole section of the menu is about information about the
page.
> It
>>>> used
>>>>>> to contain children but that's been separated so all it
contains now
>> are
>>>>>> included pages and backlinks. These could be transformed into 2
>> viewers:
>>>>>> one for includes pages and one for backlinks
>>>>>> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section
of
>> the
>>>>>> "More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most
important actions.
>>>>>> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the
UI,
> we
>>>>>> could decide to remove the Information one and have
"Included Pages"
>> and
>>>>>> "Backlinks" only as menu entries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> -Vincent
3104
days inactive
3104
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Eduard Moraru -
Vincent Massol