I cannot speak for Judy, but that's exactly what I see best.
2011/9/13 Tobias Wunden <[email protected]>
> 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]
> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
