Hi, > On 08 Jun 2016, at 13:50, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Votes so far on layout: > 1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb) > 2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent)
That’s not correct. I haven’t voted yet and I never said that the tree shouldn’t be there. I just highlighted pros and cons of each :) +1 to 1 because: - This is the option that shows clearly the concept of page hierarchy to users - Admins can then choose to keep it, only keep the AppBar (workgroup flavor-style) or only keep the Tree (documentation flavor-style) - This is about the default flavor which is generic. When we introduce more flavors in the future, those flavors can favor a different panel organization depending what’s best for them Thanks -Vincent > 3. +1 (GL) > > After more discussions the vote swifted towards: > 1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +0 (Vincent) > 2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent) > 3. +1 (GL) > > My preference goes to 2. > > I vote for 2 since I believe that the Tree is already in the Breadcrumb, > and the breadcrumb is introduced by the Tour. > I vote for 2 since we have scalability issues that I believe they will pose > some problems on the long run for the users. > > The only advantage var 1 has is that it displays the tree from the start to > the user. But after a time the user will be 'forced' to configure its wiki > and remove it. > Each time the user will install a new app, both the Appbar and the Tree > will increase in size. > > I like much more the classic AppBar navigation pattern and I think XWiki's > greater strength is in applications. > > We are lacking now multiple flavors that could showcase both the KB and > Groupware cases, but if I were to choose a default, that would be > Groupware. > > So on V1 I will be +0, but definitely -1 on V3. > > Votes so far: > 1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +0 (Vincent), +0 (Caty) > 2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +1 (Caty) > 3. +1 (GL), -1 (Caty) > > Thanks, > Caty > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Caleb James DeLisle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I disagree with this point, as a user of web interfaces I don't care if >> they look completely busted as long as I can make use of them, even if they >> become unusable in 5% of the situations, that's 95% where I can use them. >> >> Granted if we ship something that looks broken it's an embarassement but >> if we ship something that a person cannot navigate then we don't even have >> them complaining at us, they just become another silent non-adopter. >> >> >> On 08/06/16 11:01, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote: >> >>> So I think version (1) looks good but it doesn't scale with what we have >>> right now. Thus I'm more in favour of solution (2), at least until we can >>> resize the panel width. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
