-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On May 7, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
mde has stated that, as is, the dev time is very low and will
result in something that ( according to all the feedback we've seen
so far ) a better UI. So we're talking about perceived risk in two
plans.
Why is there an assumption that copying the chandler detail and
implementing "as is" is low risk. We've already said that there are
risks in that design and solving those issues is harder following a
UI based exactly on chandler desktop. So both designs have risks
for development, and one design makes usability suffer greatly on
low resolution.
I'd also like to note that mde's test where the non-collapsing
detail view barely fit on 1280x1024 is when the browser is at
default size, the browser is not the desktop client and is usually
resized in some way and we are currently fixing the calendar UI for
different window sizes within a certain range.
With more room to work in the detail view we have a small reduction
in risk. Can anyone please elaborate on the design risk in a new UI
that fits the same components and semantics as the existing
chandler UI in a manor better fitting a webui. I'm racking my brain
trying to figure out what all the issues are and I honestly can't
think of more than a few minor problems.
Actually the semantics are not the same, which is what Jeffrey was
trying to point out. The preview release consists of a number of
"experiments". First, (and foremost in my mind) is the experiment
around the ideas that are the essence of Chandler whether delivered
via desktop or web software. That includes triage based management
of information (dashboard), ability to reshape information as you
understand its purpose (stamping), sharing of items, and so forth.
Getting validation and feedback on these ideas is the high order bit
of preview, at least for me. The new design weakens the benefits of
stamping in order to cater to small screens. I'm really surprised
by how vociferously people want to clip everything for the sake of
people on small screens.
Yes, this is only the first iteration of the UI and there will be
more, but I don't think myself or the developers are seeing anyones
reasoning for not going for this better UI now and I think we would
all appreciate a little bit of elaboration from PPD. We've tried
very hard to voice our concerns in the small window we have before
EOD and would like to know that our time hasn't been wasted.
I'd also like to say that one UI has to room for "iteration" and
the other is essentially throw away code after 0.7 which I think is
what is making some of us a little more adamant about this right now.
What if the ultimate solution for this turns out to be a detail view
horizontally across the bottom, as has been proposed? Then I'd say
that we're back to square one again.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGP8j2YCjW/J06/U8RAqluAJ91tJ4LtqKYBiuuuf5QckHOn36gdwCeP8uy
YWieVPS5ZVisuti1ew3dSas=
=STm7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
