On 07/19/2013 11:19 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 07/19/2013 09:26 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:17:49PM +0200, Petr Vobornik wrote:
Disclaimer: I have no strong feelings in this matter, it just looks
weird to me, so I'm OK with not doing it if it's general consensus.
Originally we wanted to do this change in
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3569 but it was not done
because of string freeze.
I guess you can add field suffix to every field from /etc/password
when you use it in a sentence but that doesn't necessary mean that
You can. But gid exists as a concept beyond /etc/passwd. So does home
directory. The GECOS field value does not, really.
it's its name. man 5 passwd doesn't use word 'field' next to GECOS
in fields description/list either. IMO our use case is the same.
GECOS This field (sometimes called the "comment field")
The gcos field in the password file was
Historically correct label would probably be 'GECOS identity' but
that's not usable today as it's purpose is more general.
Do we have tips in the UI?
> May be we should add them in future to provide extra information about
> meaning of the field or button.
We do, but UX is not the best. 'doc' defined in .py files is displayed
as a textbox tooltip. This feature is not apparent and for most of the
fields the tooltip is the same as label.
There is an idea to display a question mark icon next to textboxes to
draw an attention to a presence of the doc text and provide it in a tooltip.
I like the way how it's done in Alchemy UI:
http://www.ui-alchemy.org/form You can notice there an additional
information (string length limitation, example...) when field is focused.
I went through open tickets and found few which touches the topic:
- https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/2912 [RFE] [Web UI] Use doc as
field's tooltip instead of label
* Seems to be already implemented.
- https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/2413 [RFE]: add in UI examples
of what is the requested field
- https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3661 [RFE] IPA Web UI: When
adding new reverse zone in DNS there could be an example of expected
* Looks like duplicate of #2413
IMO we should close #2413 and maybe #2912 or change #2912 to cover the
above mentioned proposals (in case of agreement).
For now I think GECOS would probably be good enough.
Adding "field" makes it more precise but looks weird.
Freeipa-devel mailing list