Re: Default Template discussion

Hi Claudia,

Tx for your inputs.

> Dirks ideas:
> >TABS section will be used for the key Page related actions
> >User section above the HEADER block. (right aligned)
>
> I agree with the choice of items for each section and their respective
> placements
Still, with CSS skinning, you can place the User section anywhere your want.


> In this case a dedicated right aligned pageactions block wouldn't be needed
> would it?
Yep. Actually, the 'pageactions' at the right side are really getting reduced to
a

>
> I am starting to *see* that *my* problem was that I was not getting the
> motivation behind doing it the way its done today. You will have this
> problem with others as well I pressume. Views can change and you can get the
> aha reaction later. However, with that said, I still believe that the best
> designs dont need to be explained to a user. Quality can be difficult to
> describe but it is recognized immediately when encountered. With UI
> simplicity and ease of use rules.
>
> >The 'page-actions' block (next to the tabs, but right aligned) will be
> >configurable through a new Wiki Page:  'Navigation'. (I will propose a
> >format later)
> >An Admin can use this (pageactions block) for often used and very important
> links
>
> OK so now we have an Admin configurable:
>
> left Favorites block.
> right aligned pageactions block
>
> If the tabs could be fixed then the left and right menu  blocks could be
> left to the discretion of the Admin. He can place them where he wants and
> puts what he wants in there.
>
> New Suggestion for Comment and Attach:
> 1. Group all edit changes allowed to a page in one place (ex. under the Edit
> Page Tab):
>
> Add Comment
> Add Attachment
>
> It should be perfectly clear to  users which users can:
> upload an attach, edit and comment tab page, rename etc..
>
> Visibility:
> When a  tab is there the user expects to be allowed to do something with it.
> If its not there, he will use a lot of time wondering why its missing. Its
> good that in 2.5 you have a statement as to who is allowed to do what.
>
> Take attachments:
> In Alex's 4.5 online example, I was allowed to upload a file as an
> attachment before
> I was informed that I am not allowed to perform this operation--Not cool--
>
> In 2.4, there was no indication that I had to be authorized to add an
> attachment nor was it clear that only an admin could delete an attachment.
>
> Dirk I am just wondering, if the tabs could remain as you described could
> it make sense to have a menu block within the content page. Each link or
> button would pertain to the tab page.
>
> In this scenario, the page I am editing either has an comment(add/cancel
> comment buttons) and has an attachment(add/delete buttons) ..
>
> Perhaps some prototypes are in order??? :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/19/07, Janne Jalkanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > TABS will be used for the key Page related actions:
> > > * View
> > > * Edit
> > > * Attach (#) :get list of attachments, add attachments, preview
> > > attachments
> > > * Info : get version history of the page, rename a page, delete a page
> > > * Link (only visible when Info is active) : show all incoming and
> > > outgoing links of a page
> > > * Diff : Show difference between 2 page versions.
> > > * Comment
> >
> > What bugs me with this is that the tabs change according to the
> > view.   This is not exactly "path of least surprise". In addition
> > when you are watching a list of attachments, depending on your *real*
> > URL the tab list is different.  I know the technical reason why that
> > happens, but to the user it can be a bit of a surprise.
> >
> > If there was a way to make it constant, I think that would be
> > better.  Somehow when you click on a tab in Windows, you don't expect
> > the other tabs to change.   I would rather use nested tabs for e.g.
> > PageInfo.
> >
> > I would also keep "comment" as a separate button.
> >
> > > Some remaining links in the More... menu of today:
> > > * System Info: ... ?
> >
> > Not really useful, I think.  I mean, the geeky people like to look at
> > SystemInfo, but I don't think it's that useful for anyone else.
> >
> > > * Workflow  :  suggest to bring this under UserPreferences as it
> > > really is about your contribution in certain workflows (at least that
> > > is my understanding of it)
> >
> > Yes and no.  It's not a preference.  So I don't know how many users
> > would look for it there.
> >
> > /Janne
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is the Jspwiki-users mailing list, in which we discuss the
> > stable release (even-numbered, 2.4.x, 2.6.x), and user-issues.
> > For development discussion, please join jspwiki-dev.
> > http://ecyrd.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jspwiki-users
> > http://www.jspwiki.org/JSPWikiMailingList
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Jspwiki-users mailing list, in which we discuss the
> stable release (even-numbered, 2.4.x, 2.6.x), and user-issues.
> For development discussion, please join jspwiki-dev.
> http://ecyrd.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jspwiki-users
> http://www.jspwiki.org/JSPWikiMailingList
>