Re: Blends pages, tasks pages etc.
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 08:34:27PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > I keep on failing how you draw the conclusion what users are
> > expecting.
> OK, so could you describe what the expections of the users here are?
Long description, screenshot, citations, popcon, available in which
> > Sorry, you are wrong here: I asked always *new* users (after talks
> > presenting it or asking new colleagues).
> I misunderstood you here, sorry. I thought that you had asked people to
> compare the current approach with the alternative one.
No, I did not yet.
> > Users are also very keen on seeing relevant publications.
> What dou you mean here? Publications are included in my design. See
> as an example.
Ahh, OK. May be I was to quick since I did not clicked on anything.
May be I was to quick here. I need more time and we probably need more
input since I'm definitely biased. I'm personally missing the color
where a user would be attracted to work (translation + debtags). I also
do not see with one look whether we have packaged the latest upstream or
> Is not shortened at all. It contains almost everything what is in the
> current approach. So, it has *additionally* to what you intended (please
> write a few words about this) the advantage that one can have a better
> overview if one likes.
> What exactly are you missing there?
I was missing a clear sign that the single lines are expandable (I
admit that the links on top are there now after looking closely).
> > I do not care for the size but the fact that we have the entire
> > information about the packages.
> This is there in my approach as well. You can have it selectively per
> package (what I would prefer), or in one big piece (with the "#all"
> hash). Switching between them is just one click.
> But, page length finally *does* matter. Nobody wants to go though a
> endless page.
> > You simply want something else which is fine but please do not
> > describe it as replacement for the existing tasks pages.
> It can IMO replace it since it has the original content (minus the parts
> that I still didn't implement yet).
I think others should raise their opinions since I'm to biased and
to used to the current look to be objective.
Thanks for your work on this