Since it's been a long time since this mail has been started and I want to have progress I will commit the current content + Layout 1 (according to the votes).
We can make changes in the future and improve. Thanks for your "votes", Caty [1] http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13478 On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
