Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management

[Koch (ovido)]

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" 
> To: "engine-devel" 
> Cc: users@ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" , "Eli Mesika" 
> , "Einav Cohen" , "Eldan Hildesheim" 
> 
> 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

[Eli Mesika]

- Original Message -
> From: "Malini Rao" 
> To: "engine-devel" 
> Cc: users@ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" , "Eli Mesika" 
> , "Einav Cohen"
> , "Eldan Hildesheim" 
> 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" 
> To: "engine-devel" 
> Cc: users@ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" , "Eli Mesika"
> , "Einav Cohen" , "Eldan Hildesheham"
> 
> 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

[Karli Sjöberg]

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" mailto:m...@redhat.com>>
To: "engine-devel" mailto:engine-de...@ovirt.org>>
Cc: users@ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" 
mailto:ih...@redhat.com>>, "Eli Mesika" 
mailto:emes...@redhat.com>>, "Einav Cohen" 
mailto:eco...@redhat.com>>, "Eldan Hildesheim" 
mailto: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.se
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management

[Eli Mesika]

- Original Message -
> From: "Malini Rao" 
> To: "engine-devel" 
> Cc: users@ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" , "Eli Mesika" 
> , "Einav Cohen"
> , "Eldan Hildesheim" 
> 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

[René Koch]

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 
> Sent: Wednesday 14th August 2013 20:50
> To: engine-devel 
> Cc: Eldan Hildesheim ; 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

Re: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management

[Yair Zaslavsky]

- Original Message -
> From: "Malini Rao" 
> To: "engine-devel" 
> Cc: "Eldan Hildesheim" , 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

[Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management

[Malini Rao]

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