Re: Unified appearance of Comments-tab and History-tab

I like the original view from version 0.21 - being referred to here as version 
1. http://wever.org/Screenshot-Scarab-version1.png


 From my point of view as a plain web viewer (non jira user), version 1 is the 
easiest to look at. It is the easiest for my eyes to scan.

When looking at the complete history, I need the information divided up as 
simple as possible, but also as much as possible, so I can scan faster.

I completely concur with Mick Semb's view point.

-RG



Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> -- cross-posting to user's list. please reply to dev list only. --
> 
> -- this thread discusses a proposal for a new history tab layout --
> 
> 
>> So now we have to decide what we do or? +1 for a font without serifs,
>> and +1 for a revert of the change or an enhancement in font and style so
>> mick can't complain anymore.
> 
> Is a vote necessary yet? Cant we continue until we all reach a consensus 
> on the smart solution :-)
> Problems with voting is that it disenfranchises those voted against. It 
> also encourages lazy behaviour, overriding those that spend time to 
> dissect and discuss the problems and merits.
> 
> Currently, to my understanding, people liking the new style are Ronny, 
> Johannes. Killi, and Torsten. 
> 
> (( It's my opinion these people have been jira-ised ;-) ))
> 
> But both Johannes, Torsten, and myself have resistance to the change 
> having been done so quickly and/or without a broader community opinion.
> 
> No answer from Jorge or Hussayn yet.
> 
> So the tide seems largely against me at this point.
> Let me try one more time, please bear with me.
> 
> The discussion largely i feel has focused on style, appearance, and 
> similarity to other systems. We've already invalidated the last point so 
> please be objective to that.
> 
> I don't feel that style or appearance here is important one bit, sorry, 
> because the history tab is not the front page of any issue. It's purpose 
> is _purely_ functional. Nobody goes to the history tab to see the current 
> state of an issue or to read the latest version of any comments. 
> 
> People go there to
>  a) go through the issue's state lifecycle, or
>  b) read previous versions of comments/text fields.
> 
> These two objectives should be what we focus on in finding the best 
> layout. Because of (a) i've tended towards a solution that can isolate 
> attribute changes away from reasons/comments/long-text-attribute changes. 
> I definitely don't think that the original layout does this properly 
> either.
> 
> Now some more screenshots of the various history tabs.
> I'm also unsure as to how many have realised there are in fact 3 separate 
> history tabs to choose decide between! There are have been two changes in 
> trunk since 0.21 both from Ronny. I've added a fourth as the new history 
> tab has a few serious layout issues.
> 
> Try and go through them using the usecases:
>  1) find who set the assignee role,
>  3) find when was the issue closed? 
>  4) find who set the version attribute?
> 
> From 0.21
> http://wever.org/Screenshot-Scarab-version1.png
> Ronny's first revamp
> http://wever.org/Screenshot-Scarab-version2.png
> Ronny's second revamp
> http://wever.org/Screenshot-Scarab-version3.png
> Second revamp cleaned up
> http://wever.org/Screenshot-Scarab-version3-fixed.png
> 
> Version3 is unusable in my opinion.
> And note that version3-fixed takes up the most space.
> 
> There was also the suggestion for a combination of version1 & version3 
> keeping the date-author heading-row for each changeset but for the body 
> having two columns Actions + Reason like in version1. 
> 
> 
> But if we do move away from version1, then i hope that in some way we can 
> better highlight/distinguish the differences between individual changes 
> in each changeset to make manually searching the history for a particular 
> attribute change quicker.
> 
> ~mck
>