Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
- Original Message - From: Malini Rao m...@redhat.com To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: users@ovirt.org, Itamar Heim ih...@redhat.com, Eli Mesika emes...@redhat.com, Einav Cohen eco...@redhat.com, Eldan Hildesheim ehild...@redhat.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:50:43 PM Subject: Re: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello everyone, We received a few responses to the email below that were very helpful and it seemed like while some people preferred one over the other concept, there was a general need to see the power management card details in a handy manner. Taking all the feedback into account, we have made an iteration to the concept and want to present it back to you for your feedback. Please see attached. In this version, the dialog presents the following flow from top to bottom - 1. enable power management 2. Then Select which cards to use 3. Then indicate to the system whether those cards should be used concurrently or sequentially. Within Step 2 in the flow, the details for each card are collapsed by default but can easily be expanded. Well , few comments : 1) The Proxy Preference field is per Host not per card , it seems in your suggestion that it is per card. Therefor , it should be moved to the top of the screen below the Enable Power Management checkbox 2) The + for adding card is redundant, currently we are not supporting that , only 2 cards are permitted , when we will support that we will have to re-factor this design anyway since the concurrent or sequential can be treated differently. for example , you may have 2 concurrent APC cards along with a sequential IPMI Besides feedback on the attached mockup, we also have some questions that we would like some clarifications on - 1. When power management is enabled on a host, will at least one card NEED to be enabled? If yes, is that always the Primary card ( in other words, should the primary card ever be disabled?) Yes , and it is always teh primary card 2. Currently, in the mockup, we have checkboxes to enable and disable certain cards and also the ability to add cards. Should there be an ability to remove cards too in addition to turning them on/ off or is it ok to just add/ remove and take out the checkboxes all together? Currently only a static design with places for primary/secondary definitions , no add/remove is required for 3.3 Thanks Malini - Original Message - From: Malini Rao m...@redhat.com To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: users@ovirt.org, Itamar Heim ih...@redhat.com, Eli Mesika emes...@redhat.com, Einav Cohen eco...@redhat.com, Eldan Hildesheham ehild...@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:50:46 PM Subject: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Thanks Malini User Experience designer ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 15:50 -0400, Malini Rao wrote: Hello everyone, We received a few responses to the email below that were very helpful and it seemed like while some people preferred one over the other concept, there was a general need to see the power management card details in a handy manner. Taking all the feedback into account, we have made an iteration to the concept and want to present it back to you for your feedback. Please see attached. In this version, the dialog presents the following flow from top to bottom - 1. enable power management 2. Then Select which cards to use 3. Then indicate to the system whether those cards should be used concurrently or sequentially. Great that you choose this flow - I think it's the one which is the most user friendly one. Within Step 2 in the flow, the details for each card are collapsed by default but can easily be expanded. Besides feedback on the attached mockup, we also have some questions that we would like some clarifications on - 1. When power management is enabled on a host, will atleast one card NEED to be enabled? If yes, is that always the Primary card ( in other words, should the primary card ever be disabled?) I think the primary card has to be enabled whenever power management is enabled, but power management should stay disabled per default. 2. Currently, in the mockup, we have checkboxes to enable and disable certain cards and also the ability to add cards. Should there be an ability to remove cards too in addition to turning them on/ off or is it ok to just add/ remove and take out the checkboxes all together? If you keep with the concept of having a primary and secondary card you shouldn't be able to remove one of these 2 cards - only enabled/disable/edit it. One thing that keeps in mind for a future improvement (somewhere after 3.3) would be a power management template. When having a bigger setup (assuming 20 hosts from the same manufacturer and therefor with the same remote management cards) you have to set address, username, password, type, (maybe port) and (maybe options) 20 times (with 2 cards 40 times). But it would be much easier if I create a power management template and set all parameters except address, choose this template in power management tab of each host and set the address of the card there. But as said - would be nice to have in the future. Regards, René Thanks Malini - Original Message - From: Malini Rao m...@redhat.com To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: users@ovirt.org, Itamar Heim ih...@redhat.com, Eli Mesika emes...@redhat.com, Einav Cohen eco...@redhat.com, Eldan Hildesheim ehild...@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:50:46 PM Subject: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Thanks Malini User Experience designer ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
I think it looks great. Good job! /Karli tis 2013-08-20 klockan 15:50 -0400 skrev Malini Rao: Hello everyone, We received a few responses to the email below that were very helpful and it seemed like while some people preferred one over the other concept, there was a general need to see the power management card details in a handy manner. Taking all the feedback into account, we have made an iteration to the concept and want to present it back to you for your feedback. Please see attached. In this version, the dialog presents the following flow from top to bottom - 1. enable power management 2. Then Select which cards to use 3. Then indicate to the system whether those cards should be used concurrently or sequentially. Within Step 2 in the flow, the details for each card are collapsed by default but can easily be expanded. Besides feedback on the attached mockup, we also have some questions that we would like some clarifications on - 1. When power management is enabled on a host, will atleast one card NEED to be enabled? If yes, is that always the Primary card ( in other words, should the primary card ever be disabled?) 2. Currently, in the mockup, we have checkboxes to enable and disable certain cards and also the ability to add cards. Should there be an ability to remove cards too in addition to turning them on/ off or is it ok to just add/ remove and take out the checkboxes all together? Thanks Malini - Original Message - From: Malini Rao m...@redhat.commailto:m...@redhat.com To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.orgmailto:engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: users@ovirt.orgmailto:users@ovirt.org, Itamar Heim ih...@redhat.commailto:ih...@redhat.com, Eli Mesika emes...@redhat.commailto:emes...@redhat.com, Einav Cohen eco...@redhat.commailto:eco...@redhat.com, Eldan Hildesheim ehild...@redhat.commailto:ehild...@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:50:46 PM Subject: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Thanks Malini User Experience designer -- Med Vänliga Hälsningar --- Karli Sjöberg Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Box 7079 (Visiting Address Kronåsvägen 8) S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Phone: +46-(0)18-67 15 66 karli.sjob...@slu.semailto:karli.sjob...@adm.slu.se ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
- Original Message - From: Malini Rao m...@redhat.com To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: users@ovirt.org, Itamar Heim ih...@redhat.com, Eli Mesika emes...@redhat.com, Einav Cohen eco...@redhat.com, Eldan Hildesheim ehild...@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:50:46 PM Subject: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Hi I had found option one more clear and user friendly Also, thinking of supporting more than two cards in future makes the 1st option my favorite Thanks Eli Thanks Malini User Experience designer ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
Hi Malini, What I got so far as a feedback when implementing oVirt or RHEV systems is, that Power Management is totally unclear. Most users don't see a reason for configuring power management or don't understand what this will do. So in my opinion the greatest improvement would be to rename power management to Fencing as this is more clear to everyone who already had to do with clusters... Beside the naming, I figured out that having a second power management / fence method is very uncommon (maybe you have other experience here, but all my oVirt/RHEV/RHEL Cluster/pacemaker setups only have 1 fence method). So my preferred workflow would be: - click on Fencing :) - configure first fence method - ignore second method So approch 2 is too much clicking for me and in some way confuses me. Approach 1 seems is my favorite, but I would add a space after primary power management card , add text Optional and move Define 2 Cards and Power management card behavior below the primary power management card (above the secondary power management card). So users with 1 card don't have to think about these options and don't get confused by them. Users with 2 cards can configure the second card and choose the behavior... I hope I could describe my thoughts understandable... Regards, René -Original message- From:Malini Rao m...@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday 14th August 2013 20:50 To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: Eldan Hildesheim ehild...@redhat.com; users@ovirt.org Subject: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Thanks Malini User Experience designer ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
[Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Thanks Malini User Experience designer ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
- Original Message - From: Malini Rao m...@redhat.com To: engine-devel engine-de...@ovirt.org Cc: Eldan Hildesheim ehild...@redhat.com, users@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:50:46 PM Subject: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management Hello all, In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts Power management, we have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX perspective -http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management. We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a user's perspective before fine tuning the UI. Personally, and I admit I am not a UX guy, I like the 2nd approach. I think it's more clear. However, I would like to ask if it's possible to use something else instead of define - not that clear to me. Will there be some tooltip or any other UI aid to explain what is define? Thanks Malini User Experience designer ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
