After confirming with Marius, I've updated: Votes so far: 1. 4 = +1 (Ludovic), +1 (Caleb), +1 (Marius), +1 (Vincent), +0 (Caty) 2. 2 = +1 (GD), +1 (Caty)
Thanks, Caty On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
