Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Scott Aslan]

Rob - I really like your idea of layers! We could have a 'traffic' layer
that could highlight areas of back pressure while the data is flowing. We
could even allow the user to customize the threshold for warnings or alert
values as well as the colors used for the different states of data flowing
(E.g. green means data flowing normally, yellow is between the two user
defined thresholds, and red would be over)...maybe this layer is just the
color of the drop shadow for each element on the canvas and this view can
be toggled on or off.

Andrew - I can def see the value in coloring different phases of a flow (E.g.
flow terminator colored in red). I wonder if we could create a list of
these common phases and either let the user assign the processor/element to
a phase while they are configuring it or maybe we can automatically detect
certain well defined phases. Would also be cool to allow the user to input
custom colors for each phase and also to be able to toggle the view on/off.

Andrew - Also on the topic of coloring elements on the canvasI was
thinking about zooming out on the canvas and how quickly the current UX of
colored icons becomes unhelpful...meanwhile the Birdseye view does color
the processors in a very useful way when zoomed out...would it make sense
to switch out the canvas for the Birdseye view once we have sufficiently
zoomed out? I think this would satisfy most of the cases for
needing/wanting color. Also, nifi could allow users to toggle
the Birdseye view as one of the 'layers' even when they are zoomed in...

-Scott

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Russell Bateman <
russell.bate...@perfectsearchcorp.com> wrote:

> After thinking on it a bit, I agree that Manish' suggestion could be a
> good idea as an option (the way *additionalDetails.html* is an option).
> It would be easier if they were *.png* files rather than formal icon
> files only with a "width x length" limit.
>
> My two cents,
>
> Russ
>
> On 09/28/2016 12:57 AM, Manish Gupta 8 wrote:
>
> I think one of the things that will really help in complex data flow from
> UI perspective is “colored icons” on each processor. Not sure if this
> already part of 1.0, but from my experience, icons definitely help a lot in
> quickly understanding complex flows. Those icons can be fixed (embedded
> within the nar) or may be dynamic (user defined icon file for different
> processors) – just a suggestion.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Manish
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Grande [mailto:apere...@gmail.com <apere...@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:40 PM
> *To:* users@nifi.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0
>
>
>
> No need to go wild, changing processor colors should be enough, IMO. PG
> and RPG are possible candidates, but they are different enough already, I
> guess.
>
> What I heard quite often was to differentiate between regular processors,
> incoming sources of data and out only (data producers?). Maybe even with a
> shape?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 12:35 PM Rob Moran <rmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good points. I was thinking a label would be tied to the group of
> components to which it was applied, but that could also introduce problems
> as things move and are added to a flow.
>
>
>
> So would you all expect to be able to change the color of every component
> type, or just processors?
>
>
>
> Andrew - your comment about coloring terminators red is interesting as
> well. What are some other parts of a flow you might use color to identify?
> Along with backpressure, we could explore other ways to call these things
> out so users do not come up with their own methods. Perhaps there are layer
> options, like on a map (e.g., "show terrain" or "show traffic").
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Grande <apere...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I agree. Labels are great for grouping, beyond PGs. Processor colors
> individually add value. E.g. flow terminator colored in red was a very
> common pattern I used. Besides, labels are not grouped with components, so
> moving things and re-arranging is a pain.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 11:21 AM Joe Skora < <jsk...@gmail.com>
> jsk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> The labelling functionality you described sounds very useful in general.
> But, I miss the processor color too.
>
> I think labels are really useful for identifying groups of components and
> areas in the flow, but I worry that needing to use them in volume for
> processor coloring will increase the API and browser canvas load for
> elements that don't actually affect the flow.
>
>
>
> On 

Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Russell Bateman]

After thinking on it a bit, I agree that Manish' suggestion could be a 
good idea as an option (the way /additionalDetails.html/ is an option). 
It would be easier if they were /.png/ files rather than formal icon 
files only with a "width x length" limit.


My two cents,

Russ

On 09/28/2016 12:57 AM, Manish Gupta 8 wrote:


I think one of the things that will really help in complex data flow 
from UI perspective is “colored icons” on each processor. Not sure if 
this already part of 1.0, but from my experience, icons definitely 
help a lot in quickly understanding complex flows. Those icons can be 
fixed (embedded within the nar) or may be dynamic (user defined icon 
file for different processors) – just a suggestion.


Regards,

Manish

*From:*Andrew Grande [mailto:apere...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:40 PM
*To:* users@nifi.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

No need to go wild, changing processor colors should be enough, IMO. 
PG and RPG are possible candidates, but they are different enough 
already, I guess.


What I heard quite often was to differentiate between regular 
processors, incoming sources of data and out only (data producers?). 
Maybe even with a shape?


Andrew

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 12:35 PM Rob Moran <rmo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rmo...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Good points. I was thinking a label would be tied to the group of
components to which it was applied, but that could also introduce
problems as things move and are added to a flow.

So would you all expect to be able to change the color of every
component type, or just processors?

Andrew - your comment about coloring terminators red is
interesting as well. What are some other parts of a flow you might
use color to identify? Along with backpressure, we could explore
other ways to call these things out so users do not come up with
their own methods. Perhaps there are layer options, like on a map
(e.g., "show terrain" or "show traffic").


Rob

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Grande
<apere...@gmail.com <mailto:apere...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I agree. Labels are great for grouping, beyond PGs. Processor
colors individually add value. E.g. flow terminator colored in
red was a very common pattern I used. Besides, labels are not
grouped with components, so moving things and re-arranging is
a pain.

Andrew

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 11:21 AM Joe Skora <jsk...@gmail.com
<mailto:jsk...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Rob,

The labelling functionality you described sounds very
useful in general.  But, I miss the processor color too.

I think labels are really useful for identifying groups of
components and areas in the flow, but I worry that needing
to use them in volume for processor coloring will increase
the API and browser canvas load for elements that don't
actually affect the flow.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Rob Moran
<rmo...@gmail.com <mailto:rmo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

What if we promote the use of Labels as a way to
highlight things. We could add functionality to expand
their usefulness as a way to highlight things on the
canvas. I believe that is their intended use.

Today you can create a label and change its color to
highlight single or multiple components. Even better
you can do it for any component (not just processors).

To expand on functionality, I'm imagining a context
menu and palette action to "Label" a selected
component or components. This would prompt a user to
pick a background and add text which would place a
label around everything once it's applied.


Rob

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Jeff
<jtsw...@gmail.com <mailto:jtsw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I was thinking, in addition to changing the color
of the icon on the processor, that the color of
the drop shadow could be changed as well.  That
would provide more contrast, but preserve
readability, in my opinion.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:39 PM Andrew Grande
<apere...@gmail.com <mailto:apere...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Hi All,

Rolling with UI feedback threads. This time
I'd like to discuss how NiFi 'lost' its
ability to change processor boxes color. I.e.
 

Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Andrew Grande]

No need to go wild, changing processor colors should be enough, IMO. PG and
RPG are possible candidates, but they are different enough already, I guess.

What I heard quite often was to differentiate between regular processors,
incoming sources of data and out only (data producers?). Maybe even with a
shape?

Andrew

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 12:35 PM Rob Moran  wrote:

> Good points. I was thinking a label would be tied to the group of
> components to which it was applied, but that could also introduce problems
> as things move and are added to a flow.
>
> So would you all expect to be able to change the color of every component
> type, or just processors?
>
> Andrew - your comment about coloring terminators red is interesting as
> well. What are some other parts of a flow you might use color to identify?
> Along with backpressure, we could explore other ways to call these things
> out so users do not come up with their own methods. Perhaps there are layer
> options, like on a map (e.g., "show terrain" or "show traffic").
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Grande 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree. Labels are great for grouping, beyond PGs. Processor colors
>> individually add value. E.g. flow terminator colored in red was a very
>> common pattern I used. Besides, labels are not grouped with components, so
>> moving things and re-arranging is a pain.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 11:21 AM Joe Skora  wrote:
>>
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> The labelling functionality you described sounds very useful in
>>> general.  But, I miss the processor color too.
>>>
>>> I think labels are really useful for identifying groups of components
>>> and areas in the flow, but I worry that needing to use them in volume for
>>> processor coloring will increase the API and browser canvas load for
>>> elements that don't actually affect the flow.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Rob Moran  wrote:
>>>
 What if we promote the use of Labels as a way to highlight things. We
 could add functionality to expand their usefulness as a way to highlight
 things on the canvas. I believe that is their intended use.

 Today you can create a label and change its color to highlight single
 or multiple components. Even better you can do it for any component (not
 just processors).

 To expand on functionality, I'm imagining a context menu and palette
 action to "Label" a selected component or components. This would prompt
 a user to pick a background and add text which would place a label
 around everything once it's applied.

 Rob

 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Jeff  wrote:

> I was thinking, in addition to changing the color of the icon on the
> processor, that the color of the drop shadow could be changed as well.
> That would provide more contrast, but preserve readability, in my opinion.
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:39 PM Andrew Grande 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Rolling with UI feedback threads. This time I'd like to discuss how
>> NiFi 'lost' its ability to change processor boxes color. I.e. as you can
>> see from a screenshot attached, it does change color for the processor in
>> the flow overview panel, but the processor itself only changes the icon 
>> in
>> the top-left of the box. I came across a few users who definitely miss 
>> the
>> old way. I personally think changing the icon color for the processor
>> doesn't go far enough, especially when one is dealing with a flow of
>> several dozen processors, zooms in and out often. The overview helps, but
>> it's not the same.
>>
>> Proposal - can we restore how color selection for the processor
>> changed the actual background of the processor box on the canvas? Let the
>> user go wild with colors and deal with readability, but at least it's 
>> easy
>> to spot 'important' things this way. And with multi-tenant authorization 
>> it
>> becomes a poor-man's doc between teams, to an extent.
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback,
>> Andrew
>>
>

>>>
>

Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Rob Moran]

Good points. I was thinking a label would be tied to the group of
components to which it was applied, but that could also introduce problems
as things move and are added to a flow.

So would you all expect to be able to change the color of every component
type, or just processors?

Andrew - your comment about coloring terminators red is interesting as
well. What are some other parts of a flow you might use color to identify?
Along with backpressure, we could explore other ways to call these things
out so users do not come up with their own methods. Perhaps there are layer
options, like on a map (e.g., "show terrain" or "show traffic").

Rob

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Grande  wrote:

> I agree. Labels are great for grouping, beyond PGs. Processor colors
> individually add value. E.g. flow terminator colored in red was a very
> common pattern I used. Besides, labels are not grouped with components, so
> moving things and re-arranging is a pain.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 11:21 AM Joe Skora  wrote:
>
>> Rob,
>>
>> The labelling functionality you described sounds very useful in general.
>> But, I miss the processor color too.
>>
>> I think labels are really useful for identifying groups of components and
>> areas in the flow, but I worry that needing to use them in volume for
>> processor coloring will increase the API and browser canvas load for
>> elements that don't actually affect the flow.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Rob Moran  wrote:
>>
>>> What if we promote the use of Labels as a way to highlight things. We
>>> could add functionality to expand their usefulness as a way to highlight
>>> things on the canvas. I believe that is their intended use.
>>>
>>> Today you can create a label and change its color to highlight single or
>>> multiple components. Even better you can do it for any component (not just
>>> processors).
>>>
>>> To expand on functionality, I'm imagining a context menu and palette
>>> action to "Label" a selected component or components. This would prompt
>>> a user to pick a background and add text which would place a label
>>> around everything once it's applied.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Jeff  wrote:
>>>
 I was thinking, in addition to changing the color of the icon on the
 processor, that the color of the drop shadow could be changed as well.
 That would provide more contrast, but preserve readability, in my opinion.

 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:39 PM Andrew Grande 
 wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Rolling with UI feedback threads. This time I'd like to discuss how
> NiFi 'lost' its ability to change processor boxes color. I.e. as you can
> see from a screenshot attached, it does change color for the processor in
> the flow overview panel, but the processor itself only changes the icon in
> the top-left of the box. I came across a few users who definitely miss the
> old way. I personally think changing the icon color for the processor
> doesn't go far enough, especially when one is dealing with a flow of
> several dozen processors, zooms in and out often. The overview helps, but
> it's not the same.
>
> Proposal - can we restore how color selection for the processor
> changed the actual background of the processor box on the canvas? Let the
> user go wild with colors and deal with readability, but at least it's easy
> to spot 'important' things this way. And with multi-tenant authorization 
> it
> becomes a poor-man's doc between teams, to an extent.
>
> Thanks for any feedback,
> Andrew
>

>>>
>>

Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Andrew Grande]

I agree. Labels are great for grouping, beyond PGs. Processor colors
individually add value. E.g. flow terminator colored in red was a very
common pattern I used. Besides, labels are not grouped with components, so
moving things and re-arranging is a pain.

Andrew

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 11:21 AM Joe Skora  wrote:

> Rob,
>
> The labelling functionality you described sounds very useful in general.
> But, I miss the processor color too.
>
> I think labels are really useful for identifying groups of components and
> areas in the flow, but I worry that needing to use them in volume for
> processor coloring will increase the API and browser canvas load for
> elements that don't actually affect the flow.
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Rob Moran  wrote:
>
>> What if we promote the use of Labels as a way to highlight things. We
>> could add functionality to expand their usefulness as a way to highlight
>> things on the canvas. I believe that is their intended use.
>>
>> Today you can create a label and change its color to highlight single or
>> multiple components. Even better you can do it for any component (not just
>> processors).
>>
>> To expand on functionality, I'm imagining a context menu and palette
>> action to "Label" a selected component or components. This would prompt
>> a user to pick a background and add text which would place a label
>> around everything once it's applied.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Jeff  wrote:
>>
>>> I was thinking, in addition to changing the color of the icon on the
>>> processor, that the color of the drop shadow could be changed as well.
>>> That would provide more contrast, but preserve readability, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:39 PM Andrew Grande 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi All,

 Rolling with UI feedback threads. This time I'd like to discuss how
 NiFi 'lost' its ability to change processor boxes color. I.e. as you can
 see from a screenshot attached, it does change color for the processor in
 the flow overview panel, but the processor itself only changes the icon in
 the top-left of the box. I came across a few users who definitely miss the
 old way. I personally think changing the icon color for the processor
 doesn't go far enough, especially when one is dealing with a flow of
 several dozen processors, zooms in and out often. The overview helps, but
 it's not the same.

 Proposal - can we restore how color selection for the processor changed
 the actual background of the processor box on the canvas? Let the user go
 wild with colors and deal with readability, but at least it's easy to spot
 'important' things this way. And with multi-tenant authorization it becomes
 a poor-man's doc between teams, to an extent.

 Thanks for any feedback,
 Andrew

>>>
>>
>

Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Rob Moran]

What if we promote the use of Labels as a way to highlight things. We could
add functionality to expand their usefulness as a way to highlight things
on the canvas. I believe that is their intended use.

Today you can create a label and change its color to highlight single or
multiple components. Even better you can do it for any component (not just
processors).

To expand on functionality, I'm imagining a context menu and palette action
to "Label" a selected component or components. This would prompt a user to
pick a background and add text which would place a label
around everything once it's applied.

Rob

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Jeff  wrote:

> I was thinking, in addition to changing the color of the icon on the
> processor, that the color of the drop shadow could be changed as well.
> That would provide more contrast, but preserve readability, in my opinion.
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:39 PM Andrew Grande  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Rolling with UI feedback threads. This time I'd like to discuss how NiFi
>> 'lost' its ability to change processor boxes color. I.e. as you can see
>> from a screenshot attached, it does change color for the processor in the
>> flow overview panel, but the processor itself only changes the icon in the
>> top-left of the box. I came across a few users who definitely miss the old
>> way. I personally think changing the icon color for the processor doesn't
>> go far enough, especially when one is dealing with a flow of several dozen
>> processors, zooms in and out often. The overview helps, but it's not the
>> same.
>>
>> Proposal - can we restore how color selection for the processor changed
>> the actual background of the processor box on the canvas? Let the user go
>> wild with colors and deal with readability, but at least it's easy to spot
>> 'important' things this way. And with multi-tenant authorization it becomes
>> a poor-man's doc between teams, to an extent.
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback,
>> Andrew
>>
>

Re: UI: feedback on the processor 'color' in NiFi 1.0

[Jeff]

I was thinking, in addition to changing the color of the icon on the
processor, that the color of the drop shadow could be changed as well.
That would provide more contrast, but preserve readability, in my opinion.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:39 PM Andrew Grande  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Rolling with UI feedback threads. This time I'd like to discuss how NiFi
> 'lost' its ability to change processor boxes color. I.e. as you can see
> from a screenshot attached, it does change color for the processor in the
> flow overview panel, but the processor itself only changes the icon in the
> top-left of the box. I came across a few users who definitely miss the old
> way. I personally think changing the icon color for the processor doesn't
> go far enough, especially when one is dealing with a flow of several dozen
> processors, zooms in and out often. The overview helps, but it's not the
> same.
>
> Proposal - can we restore how color selection for the processor changed
> the actual background of the processor box on the canvas? Let the user go
> wild with colors and deal with readability, but at least it's easy to spot
> 'important' things this way. And with multi-tenant authorization it becomes
> a poor-man's doc between teams, to an extent.
>
> Thanks for any feedback,
> Andrew
>