Hi Caty, I don’t understand why you count Marius for 2 when he said:
"In that case I'm OK with version (1).” Thanks -Vincent > On 13 Jun 2016, at 13:17, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Votes so far: > 1. 3 = +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +0 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +0 (Caty) > 2. 3 = +1 (GD), +1 (Marius), +1 (Caty) > > Thanks, > Caty > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> 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 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
