In my opinion the current UI has some _major_ flaws, as it breaks with expectations against web applications and hides functionality behind unexpected actions. Opening a context menu on right click might be fine, hiding functionality in there isn't. Even worse, double-clicking is totally unexpected and hides functionality not available on any other way (especially a problem in the share dialogues).
Looking at the current system a lot seems hacked-together (or let's called "grown over time"), resulting in repeated issue reports regarding broken display of information. Changing anything is difficult, probably that's especially an issue to Inverse. I totally agree with their decision to do a complete revamp and build upon a broadly used framework. I completely agree on the missing plug-in system; changing or overriding distribution files is a no-go and horrible in maintenance. We're glad SOGo is under active development and has frequent updates, but applying changes without a plug-in system and without any kind of "API" means manual checking if everything's still fine even if you only change minor things using scripts. A basic solution would be some "hook templates" which are loaded, but not shipped by default (or shipped empty), for example for adding information at given positions in the login screen, menu items for the tool bars, additional header/body elements (to load CSS/JavaScript files), maybe even in the settings dialogue. I'm also unsure whether accessibility is a major requirement (although a basic level should be easy to achieve anyway), as all relevant information can also be queried through standard APIs. Probably there are special client applications optimized for screen readers, anyway. Same for a mobile site, I guess using native clients through CalDAV/CardDAV is pretty much always to be favored. But users also change: especially newer students at my university don't really know what e-mail is and how it works any more (these are "university messages" in contrast to "facebook messages", just having these weird user names with an `@` in-between), and people _do_ use SOGo on their mobile devices (instead of connecting to the IMAP server directly). And complain about the bad user interface on mobile phones (which is horrible there), but strongly refuse to switch to native clients working totally fine. I'd guess: providing a mobile version is actually what users request. Whether it seems reasonable or not. Regards from Lake Constance, Germany, Jens On 06.04.2015 13:21, Thomas Trepper wrote: > Hi all, > > I really appreciate the hard work with the new design but from my personal > experience users are typically unhappy with those. > I liked SOGo so far because it was all the time made for working. Please do > not loose this focus - the current UI is absolutely fine and well usable in > all browsers. It syncs perfectly via CalDAV and CardDAV so no other mobile > app is necessary. For me personally a plugin system would be much more > helpful than a new UI. > > All the best, > Thomas > > >> Am 03.04.2015 um 17:09 schrieb [email protected]: >> >> Hi Francis, >> >> Since in the mobile world, smartphones are stuck with there OS version, I >> don't know if supporting only n-1 version is enougth. And I'm not sure if >> this kind of web responsive design will work well on low-end smartphones. >> >> I'm aware there is already many JS in the V2, but it is more old-browser >> friendly. With the V3 I'm only able to login with my favorite web browser >> and nothing else. As I said I am aware that I have an old version but it's >> the first time I have this kind of problem. >> >> I didn't know about ARIA, but I am glad to discover this standard. >> >> If the V2 will continue to work, and will still be available in the >> repositories, it's fine for me, I'll continue with it, and with >> Thunderbird. But you asked for feedbacks, so I gave you mine :) >> >> Best regards >> >>> >>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Francis Lachapelle <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I insist, but please, make the new interface with less JS than this >>>>> one. >>>>> Having everything made by scripts is a bad ideas. It's less accessible >>>>> (for disable people and for web browsers), and it's slower than the >>>>> HTML/CSS rendering. Think about old/low-end smartphones, and about >>>>> people >>>>> who doesn't have a Gecko/Blink web browser. >>>> >>>> The Web interface of SOGo has always required JavaScript and the amount >>>> of JavaScript code will certainly increased in v3. However, we will >>>> avoid any change to the database schema so it will be possible to run >>>> both v2 and v3 in parallel with the same data. >>> >>> One more thing: regarding accessibility, v3 will be better than v2 as we >>> will add ARIA attributes to our Web templates: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ >>> https://docs.angularjs.org/api/ngAria >>> >>> >>> Francis-- >>> [email protected] >>> https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists >> >> >> -- >> [email protected] >> https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists > -- Jens Erat [phone]: tel:+49-151-56961126 [mail]: mailto:[email protected] [jabber]: xmpp:[email protected] [web]: http://www.jenserat.de OpenPGP: 0D69 E11F 12BD BA07 7B37 26AB 4E1F 799A A4FF 2279
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
