On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Depends who is our main focus: normal users or content gardeners? > Is there really such a distinction on a collaborative wiki ? I do not think so ! Everyone is expected to be a contributor. > As an user of a multi-language site you just care if the site is available > in your language. After you made the initial interface language selection, > you wish to have the content displayed in the same language, or fallback on > a 'neutral' language (while mentioning that the 'preferred' language is not > available). > I do not really agree here either, but it could be a default. Personally, I use english interface but I would like to see content in french when available :) > A normal user does not care that a certain page has x translations or that > the interface is in 30 languages, except when doing the initial preference. > This could be set also from User Profile. > Are we talking about UI language, or content language. For UI language, I fully agree with you. > As a content gardener (content manager) I want to know what languages are > missing in order to add them. But this info can be (and it is) displayed in > the edit mode. ... in the edit mode, should I really need to open the editor to see a missing translation. It is even worse than 2.2 :) But, this is not my point. If you look at OSX for example, you may choose a complete list of language, in your order of preference, and the fallback should follow that list. So if you care about serving, what you called "normal user", you need the same kind of preference... ...or you may serve all users by simply better displaying what is available ! This also remove the need for differentiating normal and gardeners. > ---- > > The 'easy' solution as you said is to make it configurable. And we kind of > do this when we don't reach an agreement. IMO it's good and is bad, since > the code and the testing gets split, so I hope we reach a conclusion. > You seems to forget quite quickly about our past. We use to have a list of links for years now, so we are talking about a major change for existing users. > > The argument that there are not that many languages in the wild is hard to > quantify, since we are missing user statistics. > While we do not have statistics, we have client, and we also have users, and I do not remember seeing big complaints about the way it works currently. > > --- > > Another place where we could display the language information in the > expanded state (2.1) could be near the Tags area or in the Document > Information. > I prefer the select approach (2.2) because the location is highly visible > and we don't want to capture the user's attention on an information he > might not need at all. > Basically, I agree with you about the importance of the information. However, where you seems to always see a cumbersome list of links, I see a short list of links most of the time. This is not a matter of not choosing, it is only to answer very exceptional cases, where scalability became an issue. To compare, do you think that a button labelled "Brazilian Portuguese" is more or less cumbersome than the list "EN | FR | PT-BR" ? Remember that we could display only available translations, and unless we do a remake of Wikipedia, most of the time, there will not be that many. What I propose, is not to don't reach a conclusion, is to provide best of both world ! > That's why if you really want to put them as list of links, maybe we can > change the location and present them more as metadatas. > It is not metadata, you miss my point. What I say is that switching/managing a small list of language is far better served by a list of link then a menu. IMO, this will be the most used case, and the large list will be the exception. > > Thanks, > Caty > > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Cathy, > > > > I would like to add a remark to your conclusion which is very centric on > > the 2.2 solutions. > > > > The main complaints that have been said about 2.1 solution were > > scalability, and the fear that too much languages could clutter the > > interface, which is true at some point. However, GL mention the fact that > > it is really rare to have more than five languages. I also mention that > 2.2 > > solution require more click to switch language. > > > > I would like to add that 2.1 is nearer to what we have actually, so 2.2 > > could be seen as an important change for existing users. A change that > > could be seen as less ergonomic. Switching between just two language with > > 2.2 is really boring compare to the same task with 2.1. > > > > The scalability issue should not drive alone the decision. There is also > > another aspect of between 2.1 and 2.2 that should be considered. With > 2.2, > > you do not see at a glance, what are the available translations. Two use > > case here: a) You have to click once to discover that your expected > > language is not available. b) while reviewing the site for completeness, > > you need to click to know about available translation for each document. > > > > Believe me, I have work for a long time in multilingual environment, and > > unless your language usage is very casual, single click switch and direct > > view of available languages are far more comfortable than a menu choice. > > > > So, since this is still a proposal and not a vote, I think that it is > still > > time to extends the proposal. > > Why not implementing a mix of 2.1 (for easy of use, and "back > > compatibility") and 2.2 (for scalability) depending on user > configuration, > > with a default based on the number of configured languages ? > > It does not look that hard IMO, and could have the benefit of scalability > > and usability at the same time. > > > > I hope other will reconsider their views, because this is an important > > choice, and it could make a differentiator for XWiki. > > WDYT ? > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > These preferences were so hard to calculate since people didn't used > > clean > > > +/-0/1 voted or voted positively on multiple entries, so if I > > misunderstood > > > your vote please let me know. > > > > > > Reminder: Proposal available at > > > > > > > > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguageSeparation > > > > > > __Short version__ > > > > > > So the majority of the participants liked version 2.2 with some > > discussion > > > whether to choose variant 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. > > > > > > So the current votes are: > > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 > > Manu) > > > (+1 Caty) > > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > > > > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+4) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +4 > > > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+2) } = +1 > > > > > > If you want to change your vote or cast another vote, please reply to > > this > > > message. Until then, the winning solution is 2.2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > __Long version__ > > > > > > Some conclusions: > > > > > > * 2.1: (-0 Jean) (-1 Sergiu) > > > ** 2.1.1: (+0 Jean) (+1 Denis) (+0 Silvia) (+0 Manu) > > > ** 2.1.2: (+1 GL) (+0 Denis) > > > > > > * 2.2: (+1 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) > > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 > > Manu) > > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+1 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > > ** 2.2.3: (+0 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) (+0 Manu) > > > > > > * 2.3: (-0 Jean) (+/-0 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) > > > > > > * 2.4: (+0 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (-0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) > > > > > > So this means: > > > > > > * 2.1: { '1': (-1) (+0) } { '0': (-1) (+0) } = -1 > > > ** 2.1.1: { '1': (-0) (+1) } { '0': (-0) (+3) } = +1 > > > ** 2.1.2: { '1': (-0) (+1) } { '0': (-0) (+1) } = +1 > > > > > > * 2.2: { '1': (-0) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+0) } = +2 > > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+3) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +3 > > > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+3) } { '0': (-0) (+1) } = +2 > > > ** 2.2.3: { '1': (-0) (+0) } { '0': (-0) (+3) } = 0 > > > > > > * 2.3: { '1': (-0) (+0) } { '0': (-2) (+2) } = 0 > > > > > > * 2.4: { '1': (-1) (+0) } { '0': (-1) (+3) } = -1 > > > > > > So the majority of the participants liked version 2.2 with some > > discussion > > > whether to choose variant 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. The votes were: > > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 > > Manu) > > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+1 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > > > > > Adjustments: > > > > > > Since Segiu voted -1 on 2.2.2 we couldn't pick this version until the > > > committer changes his vote, given the arguments. > > > > > > Given Sergiu's arguments I want to change my vote for 2.2.2 from +1 -> > +0 > > > and give variant 2.2.1 a +1 vote. > > > My rationale behind this change is that: > > > * initially I preferred using links to display the language in order to > > be > > > consistent with edit mode (language selection) > > > * because of space constraints I believe is better to use a menu to > > display > > > them > > > * since it's a menu, I agree it should have the standard menu look > > > * from an implementation point of view is easier to use the Bootstrap's > > > menu component than to write a custom one for our case > > > > > > So the current votes are: > > > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 > > Manu) > > > (+1 Caty) > > > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > > > > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+4) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +4 > > > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+2) } = +1 > > > > > > If you want to change your vote or cast another vote, please reply to > > this > > > message. Until then, the winning solution is 2.2.1 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I'm +1 for this proposal. > > > > > > > > I like 2.1.1, 2.2.1 & 2.2.3, but if I were to pick one I'd go with > > 2.2.1. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Manuel > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2014-08-21 11:00 GMT+02:00 [email protected] <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 Aug 2014 at 10:57:36, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( > > > > > > [email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-08-21 9:58 GMT+02:00 Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all we need to decide how prominent we want this > > > > > > functionality to > > > > > > > > be. > > > > > > > > I would make it more transparent, since theoretically you > > should > > > > > change > > > > > > > > your language preference just once (in the Administration, > and > > > per > > > > > > user) > > > > > > > > and all the pages should be displayed according to that > > > preference. > > > > > > This is > > > > > > > > not something that need to be highly visible and that you > would > > > > > change > > > > > > > > every day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not true on a public wiki (like Wikipedia). > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s a good point, we need to agree which skin we’re > discussing. > > > > AFAIK > > > > > > we’re discussing Flamingo which is NOT a public web site skin. > When > > > we > > > > > do a > > > > > > public web site skin we would need to take this into > consideration > > > > > indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me Flamingo can be used for a public wiki (without the app bar), > > > which > > > > > has not the same meaning as "public website" which is not > necessary a > > > > > "wiki" (see: > > > > > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Leiothrix+Skin > > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO it's more important to be better displayed when you want > to > > > > > > > > create a new translation, than when you read one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the flag to represent languages you can read this > > > comment > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > additional information about why we wouldn't do it like that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9512?focusedCommentId=77895&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-77895 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Cathy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.1.1 is the one I prefer, 2.1.2 is also good but the > > > separation > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > language should be more clear, and it is less easy to see > the > > > > > active > > > > > > > > one. I > > > > > > > > > have no fear about the scaling issue, even heavily > > multilingual > > > > > site > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > those of the European Commission use such enumeration > without > > > > > issue. > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > Guillaume said, it is really rare to have more than a few > > > > languages > > > > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > > Other proposal implies multiple click/touch for the same > > > purpose, > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > bad IMO for content. It is also important to only display > > > > > effectively > > > > > > > > > available languages, but with an enum, it could be also > good > > to > > > > > have > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > option to also display unavailable one greyed, so language > > keep > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > location on screen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the UI language, 1.1 is fine, but maybe a bit > > large. > > > > > Having > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > initial in the bar would be better IMO. Having also a more > > > fancy > > > > > > > > solution, > > > > > > > > > like what I have done with bluebird (see http://softec.lu > ), > > > > could > > > > > be > > > > > > > > nice > > > > > > > > > to have as well... or a easy way to customize it that way > > with > > > an > > > > > > > > > extension. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) > < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-10745 > (Improve > > > the > > > > > > display > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > available languages in Flamingo) which is related to > > > > > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6402 (Separate > > Interface > > > > > > language > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > page language settings) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While in Flamingo we could just make the language links > > look > > > > > > better, > > > > > > > > > > without changing the functionality, for the future, the > > > > > separation > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > something we might want to tackle, that's why I've > created > > > this > > > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > > > page > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguageSeparation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested in what you think about the variants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > devs mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > devs mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > devs mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devs mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Denis Gervalle > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
