I agree with Guillaume, I prefer the last proposition. Let's say
1.1 : -1 1.2 : -0 1.3 : +1 On 01/10/2015 16:14, Guillaume Lerouge wrote: > Hi, > > thanks! Actually I kinda like it. There will be many menus only for people > who have a lot of rights :-) > > Waiting for other people's opinions! > > Thanks, > > Guillaume > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Guillaume. >> >> I've added your idea to the proposal: >> >> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1.3:1.12B1.2 >> >> Too me, there is too many menus in that case. >> >> >> 2015-10-01 14:12 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> one quick question (maybe it's dumb but it crossed my mind while looking >> at >>> the proposals): what about implementing both a "viewers" and a "cog" >> button >>> (pushing the total to up to 5 buttons when you have all possible rights)? >>> >>> Could this make sense? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Guillaume >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> With 7.2, the content menus have changed a lot. The pain point is that >> we >>>> have a too much crowded "more actions" menu. >>>> >>>> Some discussions have already been done on this jira issue: >>>> http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12587 >>>> >>>> Caty have created a design page to re-organize the menus: >>>> >> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization >>>> >>>> I'm in favor of the solution 1.2. >>>> >>>> So: >>>> >>>> * -0 for solution 1.1 since the viewers are not what we use the most >>>> (thanks to the extra tabs on the bottom) and it gives them too much >>>> importance >>>> * +1 for solution 1.2, even if we might encounter some difficulties >>> saying >>>> if an item is a base action or an advanced one. >>>> >>>> * 0 for option A (too much clicks), but on the other hand I don't have >> an >>>> alternative to propose. >>>> * +1 for option B. The jira issue is already created ( >>>> http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12636) and I think nobody would be >>>> opposed to this. >>>> * +0 for option C. The browser already have this ability, and yes, it >>>> implies the hiding of the panels (thanks to some CSS we have). >> However, I >>>> remember a client using this feature for a convoluted use-case: >> include a >>>> light wiki page in an other website via an iframe. Anyway, we could >> still >>>> keep the viewer but remove the link. >>>> * +1 for D. I know that security through obscurity is not the best, but >>> it >>>> disturbs me to let an access to the source code of any wiki page, >>> including >>>> not-well-done applications created by users. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Guillaume >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) >>>> Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS >>>> Committer on the XWiki.org project >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> >> -- >> Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) >> Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS >> Committer on the XWiki.org project > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Jean Simard [email protected] Research engineer at XWiki SAS http://www.xwiki.com Committer on the XWiki.org project http://www.xwiki.org _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
