Hi Judy, On 14.09.2011, at 20:59, Judy Stern wrote:
> As I reread this, it's all getting clearer. In particular, there's an > important notion in this statement: "Not saying that a tab showing all the > workflow instances is not useful anymore, but I believe that being able to > see the workflows applied to each episode is better." Leads to one big > question at the moment: What are the needs (use cases, user stories, etc.) > that require a sortable view of all workflow instances? If we have an > Episodes UI, why not call it "Recordings" (replacing what's in Recordings > now)? If we could add the display of a bit more data (e.g. "Recording > Date/Time") to the UI Christoph is proposing and provide a way to filter the > episodes by status (e.g. to only those actively running a workflow, with > further filtering based on which phase it's in), we'd have close to all of > the information in the current Recordings UI. What am I missing? More > importantly, what would users be missing if they don't have a table of all > workflow instances? (I guess part of the answer is dependent on whether we > need to simultaneous workflows running on the same episode…) In my mind, you are describing above the final design of the episode service, this is what it should be in the end. However, we should be able to take small steps, especially given that this work is sponsored and should, if possible, make it into 1.3. Adding a separate episode ui is the proposed first step, merging it with workflow the logical second one. Tobias _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
