Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
Hello, If a topic needs more room for multiple sections then we could always make multiple wikis and indent them on the whiteboard list like the Toolbars whiteboard is. for the Toolbars I believe that Mirek will propose the way he thinks that the Toolbars should be then in subwhiteboards explain each Toolbar individually. Cheers, Andrew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
Hi Stefan, 2012/4/13 Stefan Knorr (Astron) heinzless...@googlemail.com Hi Mirek, I'd prefer to keep the current summary, basically because it's a good example of what a whiteboard summary should look like -- a single sentence that precisely summarizes the purpose of the whiteboard. Well, besides teaching me a new word (pithy) (thanks!), I am not completely convinced here. One sentence will not be enough in most cases as there are often multiple problems with the current implementation and remedy usability problems in toolbar/dialog XY is not especially helpful as a summary, because it could be applied to virtually any whiteboard. Every whiteboard should focus on a single issue. It will either be UI element-oriented, like Make the status bar more usable, task-oriented, like Make it easy to pick a custom color, or feature-oriented, like Improve color management. If it can't be put into a single sentence, then it should go into several whiteboards. Yes, the description is quite generic, but that's actually a plus -- it doesn't limit the design in any way and makes designers think outside the box. What is a whiteboard? is answered in the Definition of terms section. Sure it is, but when you are a newcomer, you don't look for Terminology first. You look at the summary. As soon as you've understood the Whiteboard structure, of course you know there's a Terminology section and you can look for it. If you are a newcomer, you shouldn't be creating whiteboards. This will be solved once we have a proper whiteboard workflow. BTW, is it really necessary to change the name of the Definition of Terms section? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. The warning to not use whiteboards for discussion isn't really of use for whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the whiteboard. I think the sole link under Discussion makes it clear enough for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link. Disagree again, if you're a newcomer ... (same reasoning). Again, newcomers shouldn't be creating whiteboards. BTW, even people that are not subscribed to the list can post, so there's no need to use the Talk page on the wiki. Absolutely correct, will change. * the listed States do now use primarily nouns ok Cool. I like the stronger colors, but I'd prefer to have a red Out of Scope header. As LibreOffice doesn't have a red color among its marketing colors (oddly enough), could you make up one? Orange just doesn't have the same DON'T do this warning effect. I know. Orange is really odd and the lack of red is an oversight in our palette. I'll see what I can do (but I have no idea how that palette was created). Sometimes I wonder if we hadn't better embraced the Tango colours wholesale. That'd have avoided some of the obstacles with branding v/ theme etc. Obviously, it would have also created new problems, namely icons seeming less attractive on Windows systems. +1 four Tango colors. I don't think they cause icons to seem less attractive on Windows -- that's a problem of icon design, not of colours. The new Gnome icon theme is detailed, beautiful, and would fit perfectly under Windows or Mac OS. * there is now a sub-head called Owner I disagree with whiteboards having an owner. So, for one: two or more owners = no problem. For the other: we should have some clear responsibilities, I think. As for whether we call that position owner or maintainer ... idk, but I found owner to be clearer (but am open to change that). Anyway, I thought, we'd agreed upon having maintainers, no? Yes. I'd prefer to use the term Maintainer, as the term Owner implies that only the owner is responsible for making key decisions. Basically, the maintainer's job would be to make sure the whiteboard is readable, clean, organized, and up-to-date. The maintainer doesn't need a prominent place on the whiteboard -- perhaps just a comment at the top: !-- This page is maintained by User:Atron --. and that links to bugs, relevant art, and proposals can be added by anyone in the community. Sure, I'll change that part of the instructions. It also means that nobody has a superior vote to the rest, which makes the design process more democratic. IMHO, we probably don't want to be the democratic enclave in the meritocratic community. There are a few reasons why this is a meritocracy, the most important being that people that aren't supposed to influence your process (of course we still _need_ to remain open to people that are currently not part of the community). Openly voting on the mailing list and on the IRC seems to work well enough for now -- the people here all seem to be knowledgeable about the current UI and UX in general, clueless people don't tend to sign up. I don't want to have people who have a vote superior to the rest. On the other hand, we do need some design principles to guide our decisions
Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
On 04/14/2012 06:16 AM, Mirek M. wrote: Hi Stefan, 2012/4/13 Stefan Knorr (Astron)heinzless...@googlemail.com Hi Mirek, I'd prefer to keep the current summary, basically because it's a good example of what a whiteboard summary should look like -- a single sentence that precisely summarizes the purpose of the whiteboard. Well, besides teaching me a new word (pithy) (thanks!), I am not completely convinced here. One sentence will not be enough in most cases as there are often multiple problems with the current implementation and remedy usability problems in toolbar/dialog XY is not especially helpful as a summary, because it could be applied to virtually any whiteboard. Every whiteboard should focus on a single issue. It will either be UI element-oriented, like Make the status bar more usable, task-oriented, like Make it easy to pick a custom color, or feature-oriented, like Improve color management. If it can't be put into a single sentence, then it should go into several whiteboards. +1 Yes, the description is quite generic, but that's actually a plus -- it doesn't limit the design in any way and makes designers think outside the box. What is a whiteboard? is answered in the Definition of terms section. Sure it is, but when you are a newcomer, you don't look for Terminology first. You look at the summary. As soon as you've understood the Whiteboard structure, of course you know there's a Terminology section and you can look for it. If you are a newcomer, you shouldn't be creating whiteboards. This will be solved once we have a proper whiteboard workflow. BTW, is it really necessary to change the name of the Definition of Terms section? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. The warning to not use whiteboards for discussion isn't really of use for whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the whiteboard. I think the sole link under Discussion makes it clear enough for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link. Disagree again, if you're a newcomer ... (same reasoning). Again, newcomers shouldn't be creating whiteboards. BTW, even people that are not subscribed to the list can post, so there's no need to use the Talk page on the wiki. Absolutely correct, will change. * the listed States do now use primarily nouns ok Cool. I like the stronger colors, but I'd prefer to have a red Out of Scope header. As LibreOffice doesn't have a red color among its marketing colors (oddly enough), could you make up one? Orange just doesn't have the same DON'T do this warning effect. I know. Orange is really odd and the lack of red is an oversight in our palette. I'll see what I can do (but I have no idea how that palette was created). Sometimes I wonder if we hadn't better embraced the Tango colours wholesale. That'd have avoided some of the obstacles with branding v/ theme etc. Obviously, it would have also created new problems, namely icons seeming less attractive on Windows systems. +1 four Tango colors. I don't think they cause icons to seem less attractive on Windows -- that's a problem of icon design, not of colours. The new Gnome icon theme is detailed, beautiful, and would fit perfectly under Windows or Mac OS. * there is now a sub-head called Owner I disagree with whiteboards having an owner. So, for one: two or more owners = no problem. For the other: we should have some clear responsibilities, I think. As for whether we call that position owner or maintainer ... idk, but I found owner to be clearer (but am open to change that). Anyway, I thought, we'd agreed upon having maintainers, no? Yes. I'd prefer to use the term Maintainer, as the term Owner implies that only the owner is responsible for making key decisions. Basically, the maintainer's job would be to make sure the whiteboard is readable, clean, organized, and up-to-date. The maintainer doesn't need a prominent place on the whiteboard -- perhaps just a comment at the top:!-- This page is maintained by User:Atron --. and that links to bugs, relevant art, and proposals can be added by anyone in the community. Sure, I'll change that part of the instructions. It also means that nobody has a superior vote to the rest, which makes the design process more democratic. IMHO, we probably don't want to be the democratic enclave in the meritocratic community. There are a few reasons why this is a meritocracy, the most important being that people that aren't supposed to influence your process (of course we still _need_ to remain open to people that are currently not part of the community). Openly voting on the mailing list and on the IRC seems to work well enough for now -- the people here all seem to be knowledgeable about the current UI and UX in general, clueless people don't tend to sign up. I don't want to have people who have a vote superior to the rest. On the other hand, we do need some design principles to guide our decisions and ensure consistency,
Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
Hi Mirek, I'd prefer to keep the current summary, basically because it's a good example of what a whiteboard summary should look like -- a single sentence that precisely summarizes the purpose of the whiteboard. Well, besides teaching me a new word (pithy) (thanks!), I am not completely convinced here. One sentence will not be enough in most cases as there are often multiple problems with the current implementation and remedy usability problems in toolbar/dialog XY is not especially helpful as a summary, because it could be applied to virtually any whiteboard. What is a whiteboard? is answered in the Definition of terms section. Sure it is, but when you are a newcomer, you don't look for Terminology first. You look at the summary. As soon as you've understood the Whiteboard structure, of course you know there's a Terminology section and you can look for it. The warning to not use whiteboards for discussion isn't really of use for whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the whiteboard. I think the sole link under Discussion makes it clear enough for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link. Disagree again, if you're a newcomer ... (same reasoning). BTW, even people that are not subscribed to the list can post, so there's no need to use the Talk page on the wiki. Absolutely correct, will change. * the listed States do now use primarily nouns ok Cool. I like the stronger colors, but I'd prefer to have a red Out of Scope header. As LibreOffice doesn't have a red color among its marketing colors (oddly enough), could you make up one? Orange just doesn't have the same DON'T do this warning effect. I know. Orange is really odd and the lack of red is an oversight in our palette. I'll see what I can do (but I have no idea how that palette was created). Sometimes I wonder if we hadn't better embraced the Tango colours wholesale. That'd have avoided some of the obstacles with branding v/ theme etc. Obviously, it would have also created new problems, namely icons seeming less attractive on Windows systems. * there is now a sub-head called Owner I disagree with whiteboards having an owner. So, for one: two or more owners = no problem. For the other: we should have some clear responsibilities, I think. As for whether we call that position owner or maintainer ... idk, but I found owner to be clearer (but am open to change that). Anyway, I thought, we'd agreed upon having maintainers, no? and that links to bugs, relevant art, and proposals can be added by anyone in the community. Sure, I'll change that part of the instructions. It also means that nobody has a superior vote to the rest, which makes the design process more democratic. IMHO, we probably don't want to be the democratic enclave in the meritocratic community. There are a few reasons why this is a meritocracy, the most important being that people that aren't supposed to influence your process (of course we still _need_ to remain open to people that are currently not part of the community). I think the content of these is self-explanatory if you present examples of this content. Again, I'd prefer to keep the whiteboard template looking like a whiteboard. (The Tentative Design section hasn't been designed yet, that's why it uses descriptive text.) So... * Terminology – it's an extra definition, I think it doesn't hurt. * Bugs – can be a hard-to-understand term for less technical people. * Personas – this definitely needs an explanation (we've had a few design team members who didn't know what to make of it at first). * Relevant Art – we might get away without the text, I guess. Regards, Astron. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
Hi all, I'd like to propose some more changes to the Whiteboard Template, see here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Astron/Whiteboard_Template So, what has changed: * under Summary, there's now some instructional text (it's incomplete, but that's a feature, I wanted to be brief enough) * the listed States have do now use primarily nouns * there are some changes of colour for the State and the Scope table * there is now a sub-head called Owner * there is instructional text for Related Bugs, Terminology, Personas, Relevant Art What do you think, can I go ahead and change these things? Astron. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
Hi Astron, 2012/4/12 Stefan Knorr (Astron) heinzless...@googlemail.com Hi all, I'd like to propose some more changes to the Whiteboard Template, see here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Astron/Whiteboard_Template So, what has changed: * under Summary, there's now some instructional text (it's incomplete, but that's a feature, I wanted to be brief enough) I'd prefer to keep the current summary, basically because it's a good example of what a whiteboard summary should look like -- a single sentence that precisely summarizes the purpose of the whiteboard. What is a whiteboard? is answered in the Definition of terms section. The warning to not use whiteboards for discussion isn't really of use for whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the whiteboard. I think the sole link under Discussion makes it clear enough for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link. BTW, even people that are not subscribed to the list can post, so there's no need to use the Talk page on the wiki. * the listed States have do now use primarily nouns ok * there are some changes of colour for the State and the Scope table I like the stronger colors, but I'd prefer to have a red Out of Scope header. As LibreOffice doesn't have a red color among its marketing colors (oddly enough), could you make up one? Orange just doesn't have the same DON'T do this warning effect. * there is now a sub-head called Owner I disagree with whiteboards having an owner. The creator of a whiteboard should take good care that he defines the purpose and the scope of the whiteboard. Once that is done, the whiteboard belongs to the community. That means that only if the community agrees can the scope be changed, and that links to bugs, relevant art, and proposals can be added by anyone in the community. It also means that nobody has a superior vote to the rest, which makes the design process more democratic. * there is instructional text for Related Bugs, Terminology, Personas, Relevant Art I think the content of these is self-explanatory if you present examples of this content. Again, I'd prefer to keep the whiteboard template looking like a whiteboard. (The Tentative Design section hasn't been designed yet, that's why it uses descriptive text.) What do you think, can I go ahead and change these things? Astron. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
