Dear SOGo team, I'll second that! If I find the time, I might add my personal POV in more detail to the discussion. But the Jens's posting is close to all what I was thinking.
Same to the message from Thomas Trepper.
Götz
Am 06.04.15 um 14:31 schrieb Jens Erat:
> 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 schif...@polytech.unice.fr:
>>>
>>> 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 <flachape...@inverse.ca>
>>>>> 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
--
Götz Reinicke
IT-Koordinator
Tel. +49 7141 969 82 420
E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de
Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH
Akademiehof 10
71638 Ludwigsburg
www.filmakademie.de
Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL
Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft,
Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
