Vincent, my understanding was that you had a certain preference, but it's true that you didn't explicitly voted. In this case I will try to count just the explicit (+/- 0,1) votes.
Still (after going on the mails) I will consider formulations like "vote", "preferred", "favor", "OK" - although I might be wrong, since otherwise is hard to translate the feedback received in votes. Would be ideal if people would vote explicitly. So, votes so far: 1. +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +0 (Caty) 2. +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Caty) 3. +1 (GL), -1 (Caty) Hope I didn't do mistakes, otherwise state them and we will correct the vote. Thanks, Caty On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
