----- 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