I want to agree with Katie. I think that from a public view of our project, getting something that works shipped by mid-July (read that as before OSCON) is more important than tweaking the UI. So if adopting the new UI adds additional risk of slippage I would vote for the less risky choice.
But, if the risk is about the same and the development and QA time is about the same, I would encourage us to explore the web-centric UI. Maybe because we would be using standard collapse/expand panels the risk to get something that fits in a standard browser-size window could be less than porting the Chandler desktop design. Even if the new UI turns out to be riskier and we decide not to do this for 0.7, again I would agree with Katie that we should plan to try this implementation post 0.7 and not let this decision create inertia that blocks future exploration. So, bottom line -- I like the idea of the new UI, I think we should do it, but only do it for 0.7 if risk to slippage is not greater than the existing desktop UI. Pieter On 5/7/07, Katie Capps Parlante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A couple of thoughts from a strategic perspective: 1. The design looks promising. In general, we shouldn't be shackled by desktop constraints when thinking about designs for the Hub UI. 2. Getting the release out is most important. The cosmo schedule has slipped -- the 0.7 timeframe is very tight. Risking the schedule further is not a good thing. A new design introduces schedule risk, even if the implementation is the same, as a new design will likely require further discussion and decision making. Getting something out is most important. FWIW, if we don't pursue this design now, I think it is worth pursuing it for a 0.8 release. At the end of the day, the dashboard design is going to be hobbled in 0.7, because we thought it was most important to get *some* first version of it up, with the correct infrastructure behind it. This doesn't mean we are stuck with every detail in the first pass forever. I hope to see us experiment with dashboard and detail features post-preview. Cheers, Katie Priscilla Chung wrote: > This coming week Matthew is going to re-implement the details view of > the web UI in order to support stamping for dashboard. He informed me > that he will have to start from clean slate. From my understanding, the > amount of time to implement a layout identical to the desktop and time > to implement a proposal are about the same. > > So we took this opportunity to look at the event details on the desktop > and see if there are ways to address some of the known issues. How to > make it behave more like a web application. Come up with more visually > acceptable solutions to incorporate all the form elements without losing > the 'Save' and 'Remove' button on smaller screen sizes. > > ****Note: Please review the questions below before commenting on the > design proposal.**** > > We came up with a proposal which is a slight departure from the current > desktop layout of the detail view: > http://wiki.osafoundation.org/Projects/CosmoZeroDotSevenSpec#CurrentMockUp > > **The reasons for coming up with a new proposal for detail view are the > following:** > + The current layout which is adapted to the desktop app is not well > suited to web conventions. > + This layout better scales to handle small screen sizes and/or > additional types of stamps. > + Right now we have only three stamps, but there is no more space on the > horizontal 'mark up bar'. The proposed layout scales for addition > stamps, including other ideas such as annotations for read-only > collections, per a previous discussion on the design > list: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2007-May/007059.html > ). > + The visual relationship strengthens the visual grouping and > association for the address, task and event stamp and their associated > capabilities. > + The Casual Collaborator target user, is someone who does not use the > desktop every day and may need more guidance in understanding the > concept of the the address, task and event stamp. > + It's not going to take more time to build than implementing the layout > similar to the desktop. > + The current layout which is adapted to the desktop is very tight—the > web app may have problems with different fonts and font size. > > From the very beginning Mimi and I agreed to keep the two applications > consistent, but only **where it makes sense**. This proposal is not > intending to create a unique web UI for the sake of it. We felt the web > app is a good way to try ideas out, where the desktop app lacked in > experimentation because it would longer and be prone to more bugs. > > **The reason not to move forward with a new proposal for the detail view:** > + Discussion on the design list may impact schedule. > + If this proposal distracts from /'//the purpose of preview'/, it > makes sense to postpone this discussion till post preview. > + It's not identical to the desktop app and might cause problems with > some users, primarily desktop users who are used to using the desktop. > For preview, the target user for the web UI are Casual Collaborator and > not the 'Consultative desktop users'. > > It's fine if we decide to move forward and mimic the layout on the > desktop, as long we're aware of the known issues. Trying something new > may fix some issues however it will also create other issues. If our > concern is schedule, doing something new may not necessarily cause > risk—though I lean on Ted/Matthew to confirm this. > > Usability risk is unknown at this point because we don't have users > testing the proposed layout vs. the desktop layout, but implementing two > different layouts offers us the opportunity to test and learn from our > users. I understand completely if the team as a whole does not want to > take a chance on this because there are a lot of risk factors already. > > **Questions:** > Forgive my bluntness, but it seems like time is against our side, so > before commenting on the proposal, I'd first like to ask: > + Is this proposal distracting everyone from /'purpose of preview'/? > + If so, then we should consider tabling this discussion till post > preview—where it belongs? > * > * > -Priscilla _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
