I think we are over designing. I like the big ideas, but really would love simple functionality that was there before, based on user reactions I observed first-hand.
Andrew On Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 2:03 PM Scott Aslan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 canvas....I 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 < > [email protected]> 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:[email protected] <[email protected]>] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:40 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> 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 < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> 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 < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> 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 < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Scott Aslan = new WebDeveloper(* > *{ "location": { "city": "Saint Cloud", "state": "FL", > "zip": "34771" }, "contact": { "mobile": > "(321)-591-0870", "email": "[email protected] > <[email protected]>", "linkedin": > "http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottaslan > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottaslan>", "skype": "astechdev" > }});* >
