Re: [xwiki-devs] Map Application - GSoC 19
Hi all, I wanted to ask if it was possible to have a custom class sheet and the editing options of a normal page available at the same time? As it stands, for the PointSheet, we will have to skip the WYSIWYG editor for editing the page. However, one thing could be that instead of taking the page's content for the Point's popup, we could introduce a new class property popupContent and have the popup content inside that. This way, we can use WYSIWYG as well. Another approach could be to keep the current Point Editor and use that create points without any sheet. The same questions apply for the Shape Editor as well. What do you think? Best, Fawad On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:53 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Stéphane,
Yes, sure. In the meantime, I will be working on the PointSheet. However, I do want to ask if the Shape Editor is necessary at this point if we are going with GeoJSON. We can refer the user to http://geojson.io for creating the features. What do you think?
Best, Fawad
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:04 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
OK Fawad,
Meantime since Caty is off, and since today might actually be a bit early for me I'm afraid, I'd propose we have the call on Monday 15:00 UTC on Monday if that's ok with you .
Cheers
Stéphane
Fawad Ali:
Stéphane, Ecaterina,
About the call, I think we should have it so that we all converge on the things to be done. However, tomorrow (Friday), I have a call with the Pakistan's GSoC community at about 5 PM UTC. If the call will be finished in two hours I am fine with it or we could reschedule it to 2:30 PM UTC or else Monday.
Best,
-- Stéphane Laurière XWiki – https://xwiki.com
Fawad, One option to do this is to use the ready-made AppWithinMinutes editors, by introducing an additional field for the content in a class, and filling in the custom displayer property value with "{{include reference='AppWithinMinutes.Content'/}}". You can use the same approach for editing the page title from an XWikiObject form. I could not find an online documentation about this feature yet, we might document it in greater details as it's very handy when the need arises to combine the document and the object approaches. Cheers Stéphane
Hi all,
I wanted to ask if it was possible to have a custom class sheet and the editing options of a normal page available at the same time? As it stands, for the PointSheet, we will have to skip the WYSIWYG editor for editing the page. However, one thing could be that instead of taking the page's content for the Point's popup, we could introduce a new class property popupContent and have the popup content inside that. This way, we can use WYSIWYG as well.
Another approach could be to keep the current Point Editor and use that create points without any sheet.
The same questions apply for the Shape Editor as well. What do you think?
Best, Fawad
Hi everyone, Hope all of you are all right. I am working on the implementation of Indoor Maps. For that, there are several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. The first question is how would the users be using the indoor maps? - Would they be using images for each level? - Would they prefer to have a normal map and add shape-like objects to it? - Or would they like a mixture of both i.e. a normal map with images as levels? For a normal map with multilevel structures - we can use https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor For using only images - we can make use of https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html What do you think would be best considering the map's user base? Best, Fawad On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:53 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to ask if it was possible to have a custom class sheet and the editing options of a normal page available at the same time? As it stands, for the PointSheet, we will have to skip the WYSIWYG editor for editing the page. However, one thing could be that instead of taking the page's content for the Point's popup, we could introduce a new class property popupContent and have the popup content inside that. This way, we can use WYSIWYG as well.
Another approach could be to keep the current Point Editor and use that create points without any sheet.
The same questions apply for the Shape Editor as well. What do you think?
Best, Fawad
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:53 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Stéphane,
Yes, sure. In the meantime, I will be working on the PointSheet. However, I do want to ask if the Shape Editor is necessary at this point if we are going with GeoJSON. We can refer the user to http://geojson.io for creating the features. What do you think?
Best, Fawad
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:04 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
OK Fawad,
Meantime since Caty is off, and since today might actually be a bit early for me I'm afraid, I'd propose we have the call on Monday 15:00 UTC on Monday if that's ok with you .
Cheers
Stéphane
Fawad Ali:
Stéphane, Ecaterina,
About the call, I think we should have it so that we all converge on the things to be done. However, tomorrow (Friday), I have a call with the Pakistan's GSoC community at about 5 PM UTC. If the call will be finished in two hours I am fine with it or we could reschedule it to 2:30 PM UTC or else Monday.
Best,
-- Stéphane Laurière XWiki – https://xwiki.com
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi everyone, Hope all of you are all right.
I am working on the implementation of Indoor Maps. For that, there are several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. The first question is how would the users be using the indoor maps? - Would they be using images for each level? - Would they prefer to have a normal map and add shape-like objects to it? - Or would they like a mixture of both i.e. a normal map with images as levels?
For a normal map with multilevel structures - we can use https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor For using only images - we can make use of https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html
What do you think would be best considering the map's user base?
Initially I thought about images since many fair organizers provide PDF plans that could be converted into images, but on second thoughts, starting primarily with shapes could be even better in terms of user experience imho. Nothing prevents from adding images in addition in the future, if some users prefer that approach, or a mix as you suggest. This kind of experience is quite inspirational in particular (it's close to the leaflet-indoor example that you pointed out): https://use.mazemap.com/#v=1&zlevel=1&left=6.8518492&right=6.8576924&top=52.... That's a question you may consider asking on the forum as well to gather more inputs? Cheers Stéphane
Best, Fawad
Hi all, One concern in using the leaflet-indoor is that the indoor structures might not physically exist. For example, if an engineer prepares a model for a house and wants to represent the structure in an independent environment then he will prefer the image as map tiles. ( https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html ) Best, Fawad On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi everyone, Hope all of you are all right.
I am working on the implementation of Indoor Maps. For that, there are several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. The first question is how would the users be using the indoor maps? - Would they be using images for each level? - Would they prefer to have a normal map and add shape-like objects to it? - Or would they like a mixture of both i.e. a normal map with images as levels?
For a normal map with multilevel structures - we can use https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor For using only images - we can make use of https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html
What do you think would be best considering the map's user base?
Initially I thought about images since many fair organizers provide PDF plans that could be converted into images, but on second thoughts, starting primarily with shapes could be even better in terms of user experience imho. Nothing prevents from adding images in addition in the future, if some users prefer that approach, or a mix as you suggest.
This kind of experience is quite inspirational in particular (it's close to the leaflet-indoor example that you pointed out):
https://use.mazemap.com/#v=1&zlevel=1&left=6.8518492&right=6.8576924&top=52....
That's a question you may consider asking on the forum as well to gather more inputs?
Cheers
Stéphane
Best, Fawad
For now, I will move towards the implementation of leaflet-indoor as the base and if there is time, I will also implement the image option since it will be a lot useful. Best, Fawad On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:22 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
One concern in using the leaflet-indoor is that the indoor structures might not physically exist. For example, if an engineer prepares a model for a house and wants to represent the structure in an independent environment then he will prefer the image as map tiles. ( https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html )
Best, Fawad
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi everyone, Hope all of you are all right.
I am working on the implementation of Indoor Maps. For that, there are several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. The first question is how would the users be using the indoor maps? - Would they be using images for each level? - Would they prefer to have a normal map and add shape-like objects to it? - Or would they like a mixture of both i.e. a normal map with images as levels?
For a normal map with multilevel structures - we can use https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor For using only images - we can make use of https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html
What do you think would be best considering the map's user base?
Initially I thought about images since many fair organizers provide PDF plans that could be converted into images, but on second thoughts, starting primarily with shapes could be even better in terms of user experience imho. Nothing prevents from adding images in addition in the future, if some users prefer that approach, or a mix as you suggest.
This kind of experience is quite inspirational in particular (it's close to the leaflet-indoor example that you pointed out):
https://use.mazemap.com/#v=1&zlevel=1&left=6.8518492&right=6.8576924&top=52....
That's a question you may consider asking on the forum as well to gather more inputs?
Cheers
Stéphane
Best, Fawad
Hi all, After much analyzing I have found a good workflow for creating indoor maps. What I have in mind is that we treat indoor structures as map items rather than a completely separate map. The levels can be specified along with the shapes to be used for each level. Each shape will be created separately using the ShapeSheet. We can have a static list for indoor levels and another one for shapes. The shapes will be selected in order of the levels defined. For example, *Shapes List:* Shape1|Shape2}Shape3 *Levels List:* -1|0|1 In this case, level 0 will be mapped to Shape2. I am working on separately defining options for each shape so they can be better used with indoor structures. What do you think? Best, Fawad On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:24 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
For now, I will move towards the implementation of leaflet-indoor as the base and if there is time, I will also implement the image option since it will be a lot useful.
Best, Fawad
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:22 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
One concern in using the leaflet-indoor is that the indoor structures might not physically exist. For example, if an engineer prepares a model for a house and wants to represent the structure in an independent environment then he will prefer the image as map tiles. ( https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html )
Best, Fawad
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi everyone, Hope all of you are all right.
I am working on the implementation of Indoor Maps. For that, there are several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. The first question is how would the users be using the indoor maps? - Would they be using images for each level? - Would they prefer to have a normal map and add shape-like objects to it? - Or would they like a mixture of both i.e. a normal map with images as levels?
For a normal map with multilevel structures - we can use https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor For using only images - we can make use of https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html
What do you think would be best considering the map's user base?
Initially I thought about images since many fair organizers provide PDF plans that could be converted into images, but on second thoughts, starting primarily with shapes could be even better in terms of user experience imho. Nothing prevents from adding images in addition in the future, if some users prefer that approach, or a mix as you suggest.
This kind of experience is quite inspirational in particular (it's close to the leaflet-indoor example that you pointed out):
https://use.mazemap.com/#v=1&zlevel=1&left=6.8518492&right=6.8576924&top=52....
That's a question you may consider asking on the forum as well to gather more inputs?
Cheers
Stéphane
Best, Fawad
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi all,
After much analyzing I have found a good workflow for creating indoor maps. What I have in mind is that we treat indoor structures as map items rather than a completely separate map.
This sounds like a good approach indeed imho.
The levels can be specified along with the shapes to be used for each level. Each shape will be created separately using the ShapeSheet.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
We can have a static list for indoor levels and another one for shapes. The shapes will be selected in order of the levels defined. For example, *Shapes List:* Shape1|Shape2}Shape3 *Levels List:* -1|0|1 In this case, level 0 will be mapped to Shape2.
That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
I am working on separately defining options for each shape so they can be better used with indoor structures.
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor? Cheers Stéphane
What do you think?
Best, Fawad
Hi Stephane, all, Hope you are having a great day.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
Yes, points are also available within the shape editor. That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has many
shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
Sounds great but would that not become a two way process for the user? The user will have to first create a level and then add all the levels into an indoor structure. While he can do the same inside a single class. Another option we can opt is to have a custom structure like custom classes. (Which I think is more flexible to our needs) Something like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1 -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape5 ---------
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?
Fairly simple ones like visually defining popup content and style for each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. Something like: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#eQ9Mck57dv0U0A7kpAvumQ If there are any suggestions you think should be available as options, let me know. Peace, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:49 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi all,
After much analyzing I have found a good workflow for creating indoor maps. What I have in mind is that we treat indoor structures as map items rather than a completely separate map.
This sounds like a good approach indeed imho.
The levels can be specified along with the shapes to be used for each level. Each shape will be created separately using the ShapeSheet.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
We can have a static list for indoor levels and another one for shapes. The shapes will be selected in order of the levels defined. For example, *Shapes List:* Shape1|Shape2}Shape3 *Levels List:* -1|0|1 In this case, level 0 will be mapped to Shape2.
That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
I am working on separately defining options for each shape so they can be better used with indoor structures.
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?
Cheers
Stéphane
What do you think?
Best, Fawad
A better structure could also look like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1, Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4, Maps.Shapes.Shape5 --------- Best, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:31 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Stephane, all, Hope you are having a great day.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
Yes, points are also available within the shape editor.
That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has
many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
Sounds great but would that not become a two way process for the user? The user will have to first create a level and then add all the levels into an indoor structure. While he can do the same inside a single class. Another option we can opt is to have a custom structure like custom classes. (Which I think is more flexible to our needs) Something like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1 -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape5 ---------
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?
Fairly simple ones like visually defining popup content and style for each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. Something like: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#eQ9Mck57dv0U0A7kpAvumQ If there are any suggestions you think should be available as options, let me know.
Peace, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:49 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi all,
After much analyzing I have found a good workflow for creating indoor maps. What I have in mind is that we treat indoor structures as map items rather than a completely separate map.
This sounds like a good approach indeed imho.
The levels can be specified along with the shapes to be used for each level. Each shape will be created separately using the ShapeSheet.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
We can have a static list for indoor levels and another one for shapes. The shapes will be selected in order of the levels defined. For example, *Shapes List:* Shape1|Shape2}Shape3 *Levels List:* -1|0|1 In this case, level 0 will be mapped to Shape2.
That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
I am working on separately defining options for each shape so they can be better used with indoor structures.
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?
Cheers
Stéphane
What do you think?
Best, Fawad
Stéphane, With the latest iteration, the ShapeClass is able to handle multiple shapes in a single Shape object. Do you think that's fine or should there be separate objects for each shape? Best, Fawadx On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:33 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
A better structure could also look like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1, Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4, Maps.Shapes.Shape5 ---------
Best, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:31 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Stephane, all, Hope you are having a great day.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
Yes, points are also available within the shape editor.
That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has
many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
Sounds great but would that not become a two way process for the user? The user will have to first create a level and then add all the levels into an indoor structure. While he can do the same inside a single class. Another option we can opt is to have a custom structure like custom classes. (Which I think is more flexible to our needs) Something like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1 -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape5 ---------
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?
Fairly simple ones like visually defining popup content and style for each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. Something like: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#eQ9Mck57dv0U0A7kpAvumQ If there are any suggestions you think should be available as options, let me know.
Peace, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:49 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi all,
After much analyzing I have found a good workflow for creating indoor maps. What I have in mind is that we treat indoor structures as map items rather than a completely separate map.
This sounds like a good approach indeed imho.
The levels can be specified along with the shapes to be used for each level. Each shape will be created separately using the ShapeSheet.
Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.
We can have a static list for indoor levels and another one for shapes. The shapes will be selected in order of the levels defined. For example, *Shapes List:* Shape1|Shape2}Shape3 *Levels List:* -1|0|1 In this case, level 0 will be mapped to Shape2.
That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?
I am working on separately defining options for each shape so they can be better used with indoor structures.
Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?
Cheers
Stéphane
What do you think?
Best, Fawad
Fawad, all,
Stéphane,
With the latest iteration, the ShapeClass is able to handle multiple shapes in a single Shape object. Do you think that's fine or should there be separate objects for each shape?
I'd follow the same reasoning as for points and have one shape per page, because imho users will typically want to associate content to each shape, and the most suitable approach for handling content in XWiki (title, content, translations) is a page (image you create a map of a touristic region with various shapes with content to be available in various languages, that would be cumbersome to manage the content translations in objects rather than in pages). There could be special situations with several shapes attached to a single page though, that would be an advanced feature, for addressing the case of places which span across several locations, e.g. a large hospital covering several distinct areas in the same neighbourhood. What do you think? Cheers Stéphane
Best, Fawadx
A better structure could also look like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1, Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4, Maps.Shapes.Shape5 ---------
Indeed, we could go this way and see how it goes. At some point, users will probably need a visual assistant to maintain this structure, we can address that later on. Cheers Stéphane
Fairly simple ones like visually defining popup content and style for each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. Something like: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#eQ9Mck57dv0U0A7kpAvumQ If there are any suggestions you think should be available as options, let me know.
I see. These options are not specific to indoor maps, right? Regarding the title and the content, as mentioned in my previous message, I'd go for using the shape's page title and content themselves, if possible. Stéphane
Stéphane, Thanks for the review. I understand that shapes should be separate objects. Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of shapes required for each level of indoor structures. Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound? Best, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:16 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Fairly simple ones like visually defining popup content and style for each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. Something like: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#eQ9Mck57dv0U0A7kpAvumQ If there are any suggestions you think should be available as options, let me know.
I see. These options are not specific to indoor maps, right? Regarding the title and the content, as mentioned in my previous message, I'd go for using the shape's page title and content themselves, if possible.
Stéphane
Stéphane, Thanks for the review.
I understand that shapes should be separate objects. Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of shapes required for each level of indoor structures. Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound?
It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a small report by the end of the GSoC as well? Stéphane
Stephane, I think the users would require an editor. Having to create each shape separately would be cumbersome for them. Especially with the case of indoor structures where potentially 10-20 shapes would be created for each level on average. If an advance user does want to link marker icons with facet values he can use the same kind of images for points and attach a custom class object to categorize them. I don't think it should be prioritized above the editor. Best, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:51 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Stéphane, Thanks for the review.
I understand that shapes should be separate objects. Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of shapes required for each level of indoor structures. Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound?
It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a small report by the end of the GSoC as well?
Stéphane
Hi Stéphane, all, Hope all of you are in good health. I wanted to clarify how I should make the map editor so that we are on the same page. What I have in mind is a map with tools for creating points, paths and shapes. The user will be able to set basic options like the title, style and popup content from the map editor. The user will define the xwiki space the map items will be created in and then each map item will be created with the given title and content. If no title is given, the map item will be numbered according to its type e.g. Point1, Point2 if there are 2 untitled points. What do you think of this? Please let me know so I can start working on it. Thanks, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:01 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Stephane,
I think the users would require an editor. Having to create each shape separately would be cumbersome for them. Especially with the case of indoor structures where potentially 10-20 shapes would be created for each level on average.
If an advance user does want to link marker icons with facet values he can use the same kind of images for points and attach a custom class object to categorize them. I don't think it should be prioritized above the editor.
Best, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:51 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Stéphane, Thanks for the review.
I understand that shapes should be separate objects. Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of shapes required for each level of indoor structures. Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound?
It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a small report by the end of the GSoC as well?
Stéphane
One thing to add is that the map editor will be available directly in the Maps space just like the MapDataImporter. Best, Fawad On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:01 AM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Stéphane, all, Hope all of you are in good health.
I wanted to clarify how I should make the map editor so that we are on the same page. What I have in mind is a map with tools for creating points, paths and shapes. The user will be able to set basic options like the title, style and popup content from the map editor. The user will define the xwiki space the map items will be created in and then each map item will be created with the given title and content. If no title is given, the map item will be numbered according to its type e.g. Point1, Point2 if there are 2 untitled points.
What do you think of this? Please let me know so I can start working on it.
Thanks, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:01 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
Stephane,
I think the users would require an editor. Having to create each shape separately would be cumbersome for them. Especially with the case of indoor structures where potentially 10-20 shapes would be created for each level on average.
If an advance user does want to link marker icons with facet values he can use the same kind of images for points and attach a custom class object to categorize them. I don't think it should be prioritized above the editor.
Best, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:51 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected]> wrote:
Stéphane, Thanks for the review.
I understand that shapes should be separate objects. Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of shapes required for each level of indoor structures. Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound?
It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a small report by the end of the GSoC as well?
Stéphane
Hi Fawad, Hi all,
Hi Stéphane, all, Hope all of you are in good health.
I wanted to clarify how I should make the map editor so that we are on the same page. What I have in mind is a map with tools for creating points, paths and shapes. The user will be able to set basic options like the title, style and popup content from the map editor. The user will define the xwiki space the map items will be created in and then each map item will be created with the given title and content. If no title is given, the map item will be numbered according to its type e.g. Point1, Point2 if there are 2 untitled points.
What do you think of this? Please let me know so I can start working on it.
yes, I think it would be useful indeed. For generating page names in case non is typed by the user, you could use the UIN Service: <https://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/UIN%20Script%20Service> +1 for making the editor available directly from the application home page. Cheers Stéphane
Thanks, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:01 PM Fawad Ali <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Stephane,
I think the users would require an editor. Having to create each shape separately would be cumbersome for them. Especially with the case of indoor structures where potentially 10-20 shapes would be created for each level on average.
If an advance user does want to link marker icons with facet values he can use the same kind of images for points and attach a custom class object to categorize them. I don't think it should be prioritized above the editor.
Best, Fawad
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:51 PM Stéphane Laurière <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Stéphane, > Thanks for the review. > > I understand that shapes should be separate objects. > Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of shapes required for each level of indoor structures. > Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound?
It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a small report by the end of the GSoC as well?
Stéphane
-- Stéphane Laurière XWiki – https://xwiki.com
participants (2)
-
Fawad Ali -
Stéphane Laurière