I'm reviving this thread in order to make some notes. I really think we should reach a conclusion regarding this point since we have an increasing number of pages that IMO should not display the #docextra. This is because XWiki is now targeting more applications usage than just simple pages. Maybe a simpler solution would be instead of marking what pages are 'applications/technical' pages, just mark what pages contain 'content' (and thus need a way for people to comment on them).
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > For the record here's my POV: > > * For technical pages that are meant to be seen by users (thus pages that > are not hidden by default), such as Main.Tags, I think we could do 3 things: > ** set Page Access Rights on them so that they are not editable by non > admin users > ** setting #set ($displayDocExtra = false) and doing this should also > remove the links at the top since otherwise it's not very logical (if we > keep them it's the same as saying that bottom tabs are not good anyway and > should be removed - which is possibly not something bad to do but probably > goes beyond this proposal) > Regarding the removal of the links I kind of disagree since they could be considered like shortcuts to the functionality. The only difference would be that instead of linking to '#comments, #attachments, ...' they could always link to '?viewer=comments, ?viewer=attachments, ...'. While comments are needed just for 'content' pages, 'attachments' and 'history' have a more generic usage. Another improvement could be to allow access to attachments and history also from the 'edit' mode. This would fix some of our functionality access problems. Another idea would be integrate the viewers shortcuts in the 'More actions' menu while removing them from #docextra, but this solution should target our new skin. > ** I think that #set ($displayDocExtra = false) should be set *only* if > the user doesn't have edit rights on the page, so that users with edit > rights can add attachments, view page information, etc. > > * For purely code page (ie pages which are hidden by default), simple > users are not supposed to view them and thus it doesn't really matter if > the docextra tabs are displayed or not. However for consistency, I'd > propose to have the same strategy as for technical pages meant to be seen > by users. > > * I know of one exception: The home page. It's a technical page meant to > be viewed by end users but it's also meant to be edited by end users. Thus > for that page I would consider it as a normal content page. > > Is that compatible with what has been said so far? > > Thanks > -Vincent > Another related use case are the 'creation' pages: for example 'AppWithinMinutes.CreateApplication' or 'WorkspaceManager.CreateNewWorkspace'. For the last one we also have this issue http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9365 that needs to be fixed very soon. In this case, in order to assure consistency with the other Create Steps (Create Page, Space) we will need not just to remove the #docextra, but also maybe some improvements on the title elements. One idea was to create a new action (especially for the 'New Wiki' step), but the thing is that we still don't have a rule regarding the 'creation steps' and all our installed applications will need the ability to add 'application pages'. In order to assure consistency and not to have cluttered/unneeded functionality we need to make up some kind of rule and a mechanism to simply apply it (setting access rights for so many pages seems to be kind of complicated and maybe we can find a more simple solution). Thanks, Caty > > On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 01/20/2013 02:48 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 20, 2013, at 6:54 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 01/20/2013 11:31 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 20, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi devs, > >>>>> > >>>>> For content pages, the bottom tabs (comments, attachments, history, > >>>>> information) are very useful features. But does it make sense to keep > >>>>> those active for very technical pages? > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, when viewing details about a tag, > (Main/Tags?do=viewTag), > >>>>> why should people be allowed to comment? They might wrongly think > that > >>>>> they're commenting on a tag, but that's just one complex page that > >>>>> handles almost everything about tags, so a comment like "this tag > has a > >>>>> typo" doesn't help at all. > >>>>> > >>>>> Other pages should have no bottom tabs as well: user directory, blog > >>>>> category management, the whole scheduler space, share by email... > >>>>> > >>>>> While the homepage is a technical page (by default), it does make > sense > >>>>> to leave the comments active, since it's the entry point for every > user > >>>>> (although I think that the messaging system is a better way to send > >>>>> global messages). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> IMO, the advantage is that we're hiding actions that are rarely > useful, > >>>>> but could be misused. The disadvantage is that we're breaking the > >>>>> universality of the UI. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm +1 for hiding, fewer mis-usable features is always better. > >>>> > >>>> What if admins want to leave comments on a tech page modified by > another admin to ask some question for example? > >>> > >>> Sending a message to another admin should be done by... sending a > >>> message, not by commenting. A direct message will reach a user faster > >>> than hoping that the target user will stumble upon the page and read > the > >>> comment. > >> > >> If you're saying that comments are useless then we should remove > comments… :) > >> > >>>> Said differently, shouldn't bottom tabs (comments, attachments, etc) > be visible to admins for example? This could be achieved by only giving > view rights to non admins by default on tech pages. > >>> > >>> Tech pages aren't supposed to be viewed only by admins. They're useful > >>> pages for every user, so they should be visible (view tag cloud, view > >>> documents tagged with a specific tag, view the list of users, browse > >>> blog categories...). And not having view right doesn't mean that the > >>> bottom tabs will be hidden. Just the "add comment", "add attachment" > >>> actions will be unavailable. > >> > >> ok my bad, I meant edit/comment rights, not view rights. > >> > >>> And even if adding is disabled, but why should this information be > >>> visible to any user at all? Forbidding edit still means that a user > >>> wanting to see which pages are tagged with "needsreview" will see a > "Hey > >>> John, could we have an undo to tag renaming?" comment. What would you > >>> think if you saw that? > >> > >> Again if your point is that comments are useless then we should remove > comments. I think there's a place for comments but it seems your discussion > is actually asking us to define more precisely what is the use case/need > for comments. > >> > >> Also I think there's a difference between a Tag Dashboard page which is > a technical page but for end users and a technical page not for end users > (i.e. hidden page). Both will need different solutions I think. So this > proposal should address both needs. > >> > >>>> Another use case: imagine I'm an admin and I want to modify a tech > page and I'd like to add an attachment to that page… IMO bottom tabs are > still useful for admins on tech pages. > >>> > >>> This isn't about disabling attachments and comments. The bottom tabs > are > >>> almost an _invitation_ to do stuff. Without them, it is still possible > >>> to go to the attachments page by clicking on the "Attachments (0)" link > >>> below the title. De-contextualizing these actions will reduce the risk > >>> of associating a comment/attachment with a particular view of the > >>> scripted page. > >> > >> If the bottom tabs are removed then those links will also need to be > removed obviously since otherwise a user can click on them... > >> > >>>> IMO the issue is different. If a tech is not supposed to be modified > by the user then users should have only view rights on the page and NOT > edit rights. This will solve this issue. > >>> > >>> It's not just about changing, but also about what's visible on the > >>> screen, and the usefulness of such information vs. the number of WTFs > >>> generated. > >> > >> I don't see any WTF. For me any page that is a end user visible page > can have comments without any WTF. For example on the tag dashboard page, > someone may comment and say "how do I get the tag dashboard to display > xxx?" or anything else in just the same way it's done on any other page. > >> > >> In addition I'm actually finding the removal of the bottom tab a huge > WTF. As a user I know what a page is, and if I see those tabs are not > present on some pages, I'll think "what???? WTF? Why is there not tabs > there…. > >> > >>> Forget about admins, they will still be able to add comments > >>> and attachments. Think about simple users searching for stuff and > seeing > >>> a comment completely unrelated to what they're searching for. > >>> > >>> I forgot to say that this has already been done in a few places, and > >>> nobody complained about the missing things: > >>> > >>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Tags > >>> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Search > >>> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Invitation/ > >> > >> It's not because it's been done that it's an accepted > strategy/decision. I've seen those and I've always been uneasy about them > and they've been done without any strategy whatsoever… > >> > >> All I'm saying is that we need this discussion because we need to know > 1) if we want to remove bottom tabs 2) and if so, on which pages. > >> > >> ATM it's not clear for me at all. > >> > > > > No, I'm not saying that comments are useless in general, I'm saying that > > there are certain pages where they shouldn't be displayed. And I thought > > I've been clear enough, but apparently not. Let me try again. > > > > There are content documents, and there are actions. Some actions are > > implemented in VM templates, some straight in servlets or Struts > > actions, some in scripted documents. There are no comments on the > > Registration page, even though its code comes from a document. We can > > find a valid use case for comments on the registration page (for > > example, a user could try to warn others that "Hey, the user name is > > case sensitive, make sure you choose one accordingly since you'll have > > to respect the case when logging in"), but that doesn't mean that we > > should enable comments on the registration page. This an an _action_. > > People go to the registration page to _do_ something (create a new > > account), they don't go there to _read_ the registration form in case > > there's something interesting there. > > > > There are many examples of actions where we don't have comments and > > attachments and the other tabs, and nobody ever asked for them (renaming > > a document, logging in, editing the page rights, the administration > > pages, to name just a few). Speaking of administration pages, they are > > all stored as documents in the wiki. But we don't display their comments > > and attachments in the administration interface. It is possible to > > manage their attachments, though, so it's not like they're completely > > disabled for those pages. And I'm not proposing to disable them. They > > are valid and have their purpose, but they shouldn't be displayed to > > users that just want to _do_ stuff, using the action document as it is > > supposed to be used, as a way to perform actions. They would be > > cluttering the UI needlessly, and clutter isn't good. A good UI should > > be clear and simple. Removing as much distractions as possible is good > > way towards simplicity, and thus usability. > > > > Code should be optimized so that the performance is better for the the > > most used branches. Similarly, the UI should be optimized for the most > > common use cases. How many users really have to add comments on an > > action document? How often do administrator really leave important > > messages to other administrators on wiki documents? Very rarely. Does it > > make sense for this odd use case to keep the UI cluttered? I doubt that > > users will be baffled more by the fact that comments are missing on some > > actions than by the fact that you can actually have comments on actions. > > While you and I know that "everything is a document" in XWiki, normal > > users just view actions as actions. Registering is an action, logging in > > is an action, searching for documents is an action, browsing documents > > by tags is an action. The fact that logging in is done through several > > VM templates, Struts actions and internal XWiki components, while > > browsing tags is done through a wiki document, has no significance to > > the simple user. > > > > For some actions/documents it is clear when the main purpose is for > > users to _do_ something or to _read_ something. Sure, there's some > > reading involved in every action, and there's some doing involved in > > every content read. For some actions it would be debatable in which > > category they fit better. It would be hard to come up with a clear and > > precise rule. I can't come up with one. Can you? > > > > That's why I'm proposing to just accept that there are documents > > intended to be used mostly as action pages, and in that case it is OK to > > hide the bottom tabs. That's all I'm asking. Do you agree or not with > > this basic choice? > > > > As for the actual decision of which documents fall into this category, I > > think that it's OK to trust the opinion of the committers. We don't need > > to decide now, we can improve things as we go along. > > > > (I agree that the title of the proposal could have been better, since > > "technical pages" isn't a clear enough term) > > -- > > Sergiu Dumitriu > > http://purl.org/net/sergiu > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
