[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Improve the management of inexistent WebHome with children
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, 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 requested page could not be found." with no way to navigate further. These inexistent page are not necessarily invisible, there is links to them, and showing that as "error" page looks inappropriate IMO. So there is probably a couple of things we could do to improve this: A) display the list of children in addition to the actual message B) display a "default" and nice (not an error) dashboard on them that allow 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 D) do not propose links to those page in the breadcrumb to users without edit right on 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 ? -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO
Hi Denis, thanks for your message. Please see my thoughts below. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> 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 requested 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 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 every 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 also make the breadcrumb inconsistent with the URL.
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 exist 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
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Denis,
thanks for your message. Please see my thoughts below.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> 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 requested 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.
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.
B) display a "default" and nice (not an error) dashboard on them that allow 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 every 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 also 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 exist 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
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO
Hi Denis, On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Denis,
thanks for your message. Please see my thoughts below.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> 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?
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.
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 requested 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.
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.
B) display a "default" and nice (not an error) dashboard on them that allow
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 every 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 also 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.
I see. Indeed, this could work. Thanks, Guillaume
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 exist 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
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Denis,
thanks for your message. Please see my thoughts below.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> 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 requested 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.
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.
B) display a "default" and nice (not an error) dashboard on them that allow 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 every 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 also 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.
We don't necessarily have to remove the link. We can make the link appear as plain text, as we do with the last breadcrumb item. This will discourage the simple users from clicking on the link, while still allowing the advanced users to access those nodes. The only problem is that there won't be any visual difference between a breadcrumb item that corresponds to: * the current page * a missing document * a document for which the current user doesn't have view right Does it matter? I'm +1 for B for the moment. Thanks, Marius
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 exist 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
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
participants (3)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Guillaume Lerouge -
Marius Dumitru Florea