I agree, I don't think anyone would want random ordering on Hub to
scramble manually ordered collections on the Desktop. So now the
question is, how to best address this issue? Could the Desktop
ordering win over Hub? More simply put, whichever application gets to
implementing explicit re-ordering should win.
What do we do with collections that appear on Hub, but don't appear
in the Desktop?
Perhaps something here has got to give. It seems we want 3 things.
1. Maintain the flexibility to pick and choose which collections
sync / don't sync between Desktop and Hub?
2. Keep the order of collections in sync between Hub and Desktop
3. Allow for explicit re-ordering in the sidebar (at a minimum in the
Desktop)
Do we need all 3 to work? Are there simplifying assumptions we can
start with and then iterate from there? ie.
+ User has only 1 sharing account
+ User has data on 1 machine
+ Users wants same collections to appear in both Hub and Desktop
I think 3 is a given. It's something people want regardless of
whether or not they share. I can buy that for our current set of
users 1 is more important than 2. But I would argue that for new
users down the road, not addressing 2 is confusing, especially
because the Hub UI now supports a list of collections that can be
overlayed. (The inconsistency in collection ordering between Hub and
Desktop was less egregious when the Hub UI only had a pulldown for
navigating between collections.)
Thoughts?
Mimi
On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Andre Mueninghoff wrote:
From the feedback, it sounds to me like merely having the Desktop and
Hub collection order be in sync in advance of providing a tool to
users
on either end or both to change the order is occurring as net-negative
for more people than net-positive. The approach behind my
suggestion was
to advance the functionality in small increments. Seems like though
that
this may not be the best next small step in this area.
Andre
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:28:29 -0800, "Philippe Bossut"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Mimi Yin wrote:
Phiippe said:
Hmm... What would that order be in the use case I presented? Again,
my Hub and Desktop do not have the same set of collections.
I wrote up an ordering proposal
here: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2007-
November/007800.html
OK so, in my case and according to your proposal, I would get
(from my
Hub):
- Perso
- 0.7.x Schedule
- Work
- RC Test
- Cosmo
and a list of local collections I guess... Not sure where the
subscribed
collections will fall in that proposal. Where will they fit? I
subscribed to them using tickets and they are all on different
accounts.
Needless to say, this is not a very useful ordering. Not worse but as
useless as the one I have on my Desktop machine. The fact that it is
consistently useless is of little solace I'm afraid... I mean,
it's not
addressing any of the problems I have with collection ordering.
At the very least, if we go with this "sync collection order
between Hub
and Desktop" idea, we need to give to the user a way to reorder
collections on the Hub. Something in the account browser would
work for
me.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
