Hi Mirek,
> I'd prefer to keep the current summary, basically because it's a good
> example of what a whiteboard summary should look like -- a single sentence
> that precisely summarizes the purpose of the whiteboard.
Well, besides teaching me a new word ("pithy") (thanks!), I am not
completely convinced here. One sentence will not be enough in most
cases as there are often multiple problems with the current
implementation and "remedy usability problems in toolbar/dialog XY" is
not especially helpful as a summary, because it could be applied to
virtually any whiteboard.
> "What is a
> whiteboard?" is answered in the "Definition of terms" section.
Sure it is, but when you are a newcomer, you don't look for
Terminology first. You look at the summary. As soon as you've
understood the Whiteboard structure, of course you know there's a
Terminology section and you can look for it.
> The warning to "not use whiteboards for discussion" isn't really of use for
> whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the
> whiteboard. I think the sole link under "Discussion" makes it clear enough
> for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link.
Disagree again, if you're a newcomer ... (same reasoning).
> BTW, even people that are not subscribed to the list can post, so there's
> no need to use the "Talk" page on the wiki.
Absolutely correct, will change.
> * the listed States do now use primarily nouns
> ok
Cool.
> I like the stronger colors, but I'd prefer to have a red "Out of Scope"
> header. As LibreOffice doesn't have a red color among its marketing colors
> (oddly enough), could you make up one? Orange just doesn't have the same
> "DON'T do this" warning effect.
I know. Orange is really odd and the lack of red is an oversight in
our palette. I'll see what I can do (but I have no idea how that
palette was created).
Sometimes I wonder if we hadn't better embraced the Tango colours
wholesale. That'd have avoided some of the obstacles with branding v/
theme etc. Obviously, it would have also created new problems, namely
icons seeming less attractive on Windows systems.
>> * there is now a sub-head called Owner
> I disagree with whiteboards having an owner.
So, for one: two or more owners = no problem.
For the other: we should have some clear responsibilities, I think. As
for whether we call that position owner or maintainer ... idk, but I
found owner to be clearer (but am open to change that).
Anyway, I thought, we'd agreed upon having maintainers, no?
> and
> that links to bugs, relevant art, and proposals can be added by anyone in
> the community.
Sure, I'll change that part of the instructions.
> It also means that nobody has a superior vote to the rest,
> which makes the design process more democratic.
IMHO, we probably don't want to be the democratic enclave in the
meritocratic community. There are a few reasons why this is a
meritocracy, the most important being that people that aren't supposed
to influence your process (of course we still _need_ to remain open to
people that are currently not part of the community).
> I think the content of these is self-explanatory if you present examples of
> this content. Again, I'd prefer to keep the whiteboard template looking
> like a whiteboard. (The "Tentative Design" section hasn't been designed
> yet, that's why it uses descriptive text.)
So...
* Terminology – it's an extra definition, I think it doesn't hurt.
* Bugs – can be a hard-to-understand term for less technical people.
* Personas – this definitely needs an explanation (we've had a few
design team members who didn't know what to make of it at first).
* Relevant Art – we might get away without the text, I guess.
Regards,
Astron.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
