Sure Steve, that would be awesome!
The only blocker for now is that there are still happening some changes
based on feedback of what is doable / what is not. So right when we get
more confident on stable(-ish) version (or at least I'll try to sort out
widgets which should stay how they are), it will be very valuable input.
I'll definitely let you know!
-- Jarda
On 2014/17/01 01:16, Steve Doll wrote:
Looking good, let me know if I can be of help to make some high-fidelity
mockups.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Jay Dobies <jason.dob...@redhat.com
<mailto:jason.dob...@redhat.com>> wrote:
This is a really good evolution. I'm glad the wireframes are getting
closer to what we're doing for Icehouse.
A few notes...
On page 6, what does the Provisioning Status chart reflect? The math
doesn't add up if that's supposed to reflect the free v. deployed.
That might just be a sample data thing, but the term "Provisioning
Status" makes it sound like this could be tracking some sort of
ongoing provisioning operation.
What's the distinction between the config shown on the first
deployment page and the ones under "more options"? Is the idea that
the ones on the overview page must be specified before the first
deployment but the rest can be left to the defaults?
The Roles (Resource Category) subtab disappeared but the edit role
dialog is still there. How do you get to it?
Super happy to see the progress stuff represented. I think it's a
good first start towards handling the long running changes.
I like the addition of the Undeploy button, but since it's largely a
dev utility it feels a bit weird being so prominent. Perhaps
consider moving it under scale deployment; it's a variation of
scaling, just scaling back to nothing :)
You locked the controller count to 1 (good call for Icehouse) but
still have incrementers on the scale page. That should also be
disabled and hardcoded to 1, right?
On 01/16/2014 08:41 AM, Hugh O. Brock wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:50:00AM +0100, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
Hi folks,
thanks everybody for feedback. Based on that I updated
wireframes
and tried to provide a minimum scope for Icehouse timeframe.
http://people.redhat.com/~__jcoufal/openstack/tripleo/__2014-01-16_tripleo-ui-__icehouse.pdf
<http://people.redhat.com/~jcoufal/openstack/tripleo/2014-01-16_tripleo-ui-icehouse.pdf>
Hopefully we are able to deliver described set of features.
But if
you find something what is missing which is critical for the
first
release (or that we are implementing a feature which should
not have
such high priority), please speak up now.
The wireframes are very close to implementation. In time,
there will
appear more views and we will see if we can get them in as well.
Thanks all for participation
-- Jarda
These look great Jarda, I feel like things are coming together here.
--Hugh
_________________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.__org
<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
--
*Steve Doll*
Art Director, Mirantis Inc.
sd...@mirantis.com <mailto:sd...@mirantis.com>
Mobile: +1-408-893-0525
Skype: sdoll-mirantis
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
