I agree. The question is when do we replace the existing web client at esme.us?
I'm assuming that we will need some sort of a test server where the new UI is viewable. We can then vote via the mailing list when enough functionality is present to replace the existing web client. Where should this test server be based? Stax, Apache, Dpp? D. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Darren Hague [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 07. Jänner 2009 10:51 An: [email protected] Betreff: RE: [VOTE] Web UI options >* Create an intermediary UI > >* Skip the intermediary Web UI and concentrate on the "BillF" UI? Depends on our definitions. This will probably and up as me voting +1 for concentrating on the "BillF" UI, but let's iterate towards that. This may mean that us server-side guys produce something really ugly but functional as we go, and the more designer-based folks move & style the elements of this ugly UI as we go. For example, the current Apache code is ugly and not fully functional, but the HTML templating is there for the messages, which means that it is more designer-friendly than it was. In other words, the UI separation from the back-end code is already at a stage where we can start to make it look better than it does right now. So what I am saying is this: let's NOT produce an intermediary UI in the sense that we have a milestone which is "we have a functioning ESME with a bad UI", and the next milestone is "BillF UI". However, the journey towards the "BillF" UI will mean evolving what we have right now in stages, until we achieve that milestone - but during the journey we should strive to make sure that the code will build to produce a functional ESME which gets more and more usable until we achieve the "BillF UI" milestone. Does that make sense? Cheers, Darren
