On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 18 Mar 2016, at 14:58, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >>> On 18 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> To be honest I think we should not have too many menu entries, or we > >> might > >>> need to find a way to split it again (just like we did with copy, > delete, > >>> etc.) > >>> That's why I am not very fond of creating the 'Included Pages' and the > >>> 'Backlinks' viewers. I don't find them that useful and they are somehow > >>> technical. We removed Children from Information in order to replace > Space > >>> Index and also because we have the Children / Sibling mix. > >> > >> The issue is that once you say that the menu displays “information about > >> the page” it’s not very logical to have an entry named “Information” any > >> more (since there are others information entries). It could be named > “More > >> Information” or “Extra Information" but not “Information”. > >> > > > > As mentioned on our previous chat, I see the 2nd section of More Actions > as > > a "viewers" section. It`s probably inspired also by the way they are > > implemented (/view/Page?viewer=<name>) > > Saying “viewer” (which is a technical term that I believe doesn’t mean > anything to users) or saying it contains “Information about the page” is > the same thing. Saying “viewer” just hides the semantic meaning. > > > Another way of looking at it would be to see the page as an object, where > > the 2nd section of "More Actions" would be the "getter" methods. > > That’s even more technical. Remember that we’re talking users here ;) > I was not referring to simple users here, just trying to present it to you :) > > > Remember this proposal > > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1.1:Viewerssubmenu > ...and this was a reminder on how it would look like if we would separate these viewers, since it`s not the first time we`ve had this idea, hinting that it`s a conclusion that is easy to reach, probably for simple users too. > > ? :) > > > > Looking at it this way, allows "Information" to stay where it is, IMO, as > > I`m also not a big fan of promoting the backlinks and included pages in > the > > menus. Also, remember that included pages is displayed in edit mode, in > the > > panel, which is, IMO, a better suited location anyway. > > This is just hiding the fact that the links all contain information about > the current page. You can call it metadata, viewers or whatever you want > it’s still about data (i.e. information) of the current page. And since all > other viewer links are also about this there’s no reason to have one called > with the generic name. > > Basically what “information” means here is “all the other metadata for the > page”. > > But it’s not a big issue. We don’t need to be 100% logical in the UI. > Sure. Even so, I still find it relevant enough to have this ("Extra") "Information" docextra/viewer/etc. since it can be useful to display important stuff (specially to advanced users) that don`t really deserve a dedicated view. Examples of stuff I`d personally like to see in that tab: - Document Programming Right status (advanced) - Document Script Right status (advanced) - Document displayed with sheet X? (advanced) - Document lock status? - etc. Of course we can work on the naming if you like... tough it will be tough to find a better name IMO :) Thanks, Eduard > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > > Thanks, > > Eduard > > > >> > >>> I agree that View Source could be moved in Information. > >> > >> Does it mean you’re ok with the other bullet point entries? > >> > >> Also I didn’t mention it, but this proposal means reorganizing the VMs > >> (menu_content.vm and shortcuts.cm) since right now the vm for > displaying > >> the second part of the More Actions menu is called shortcuts.vm and its > >> first line is: > >> > >> #if (!$docextralinks && !$docextras) > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Caty > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi devs, > >>>> > >>>> Here’s the outcome of a discussion I had with Caty/Edy on IRC + > addition > >>>> of some elements of my own. > >>>> > >>>> The idea is to clarify our strategy for the “More Actions” menu. > >>>> > >>>> So here’s a proposal: > >>>> > >>>> * The More Actions menus is actually a "More" menu since it doesn't > >>>> contain only actions. Specifically it contains 2 types of links: > >>>> ** Actions such as Export, Annotate, Print, Share > >>>> ** Information about the page (they're not actions): History, > >>>> Comments/Annotations, Children, Attachments > >>>> * The "View Source" entry is not placed correctly and should be moved > to > >>>> the information section > >>>> * The "Information" entry could be renamed or be made more specific > >> since > >>>> the whole section of the menu is about information about the page. It > >> used > >>>> to contain children but that's been separated so all it contains now > are > >>>> included pages and backlinks. These could be transformed into 2 > viewers: > >>>> one for includes pages and one for backlinks > >>>> * The extradocs tabs do not need to match the information section of > the > >>>> "More" menu. We only display in the tabs the most important actions. > >>>> * Idea: In order not to have too many tabs and to simplify the UI, we > >>>> could decide to remove the Information one and have "Included Pages" > and > >>>> "Backlinks" only as menu entries. > >>>> > >>>> WDYT? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
