Hi Judy,
to be honest, I am not quite sure what it is that you are proposing. You'd like
to stick with "Recordings", but you don't mention how the episode view should
be integrated in your mind. Would you like to merge the two views into one? If
so, is it fine to take an iterative approach and show the "Episodes" tab now in
addition to "Recordings" and start merging the two views in the next step?
Tobias
On 12.09.2011, at 20:56, Judy Stern wrote:
> I've got some fairly strong opinions about this, which perhaps may be allayed
> with further discussion. (Thus, I am not giving a "-1" just yet.)
>
> No disagreement with the the statement that "we need to start separating our
> thinking and terminology with respect to what a workflow is and what a
> recording is." Where I am unsure is whether or how this should translate to
> the Admin Tools UI.
>
> My primary concerns with the term "workflow":
> 1) It's ambiguous. Aren't we really talking about "workflow instances" here?
> (A table of "workflows" should show the available workflows, e.g. "Encode,
> Analyze, and Distribute", "Encode for DVD", etc.)
> 2) (More controversial) The term "workflow" is too "loaded" for many
> potential users of the Matterhorn Admin tools (e.g. "program administrators",
> those who are not programmers or system administrators, and can't always be
> expected to have a deep understanding of how Matterhorn works).
>
> My primary concerns with the term "Processing":
> 1) We'd introduce further complications, since we have a Recordings filter
> called "Processing". Many of the items we currently call Recordings are only
> "processing" (as we've used the term before) at certain times.
> 2) The tabs are meant to represent the conceptual objects in the system
> ("Recordings", "Series", "Capture Agents", soon "Users") that one can get
> information about and act upon. ("Statistics" is an oddball here, but it's at
> least a noun.)
>
> When the current admin UI was designed with the term "Recordings", it was
> with the intention of "Recordings" being a reference to something more
> conceptual than a single workflow instance. It was meant to represent the
> conceptual entity that non-Matterhorn technical experts might think of (and
> care about) when they're asking questions, e.g. "When will I be able to view
> [the recording of today's class]?", "What has to be done to make the [the
> recording of yesterday's class] available?". To be sure, it was also
> recognized that there were serious design problems that needed to be solved
> in order to represent some of the power that the underlying architecture
> provides (that is now starting to be surfaced): How can can we represent
> partial failures (e.g. distribution to one distribution channel but not
> another)? How can we represent any multiple attempts to process a recording
> (e.g. retries)? Etc.
>
> I am wondering if we could consider continuing to call the tab "Recordings"
> but move towards starting to solve those design problems: Can we come up with
> a way to expose the application of multiple workflows to those recordings
> (i.e. show all the workflow instances)? This would mean such characteristics
> as:
> -- clearly exposing when a particular recording has multiple workflow
> instances (and query what settings have been applied to each instance)
> -- providing the ability to take certain actions on specific workflow
> instances (think about some of the hold state actions) and other actions on
> the recording as a whole (think about editing metadata)
> --being able to apply new workflows to existing recordings.
> We'd also need to think thru some of the questions Adam has asked in the
> thread "Release 1.3 Scope and Criteria <IMPORTANT> #proposal".
> I am happy to try to tackle some of these design problems if there is not
> huge disagreement to the approach.
>
> Judy
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:53 AM, Tobias Wunden wrote:
>
>> As part of the work on [1] and with the ongoing activities around the
>> episode service, it is becoming clear that we need to start separating our
>> thinking and terminology with respect to what a workflow is and what a
>> recording is.
>>
>> The current admin uis refer to "recordings" where really "workflows" are
>> meant. With the episode service in place (currently displaying an "Episodes"
>> tab next to "Series" and listing the media packages that have so far been
>> processed by he system), I suggest to rename the current "Recordings" tab to
>> "Processing" or "Workflows".
>>
>> Does anybody have strong opinions about this?
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> [1] MH-8084 As an administrator, I want to be able to retract media packages
>> from their distribution channels
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
