Results for now: 1.1: -0 (me), -1 (Jean), -1 (Yacine) 1.2: +1 (me), -0 (Jean), +1 (Caty), +1 (Yacine) 1.3: 0 (me), +1 (Jean), +0 (Yacine), +1 (Guillaume Lerouge).
So 1.1 is out. We still have 1.2 = 2 (me and Caty are the only binding votes) and 1.3 = 1 (Jean is only the binding vote). It's a bit short to take a decision. Please vote! 2015-10-05 16:18 GMT+02:00 Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]>: > For the record, the users that don't have delete and admin right on > the current document (i.e. the users that are neither administrators > nor the creator of the current document), which is the most common use > case I think, will have only the Copy entry in the Actions menu with > 1.2. In other words, most of the users will see a menu with only one > entry. > > Thanks, > Marius > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:57 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
