[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
- Subject: Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
- From: "Mirek M." <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:16:44 +0200
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
2012/4/13 Stefan Knorr (Astron) <email@example.com>
> Hi Mirek,
> > I'd prefer to keep the current summary, basically because it's a good
> > example of what a whiteboard summary should look like -- a single
> > that precisely summarizes the purpose of the whiteboard.
> Well, besides teaching me a new word ("pithy") (thanks!), I am not
> completely convinced here. One sentence will not be enough in most
> cases as there are often multiple problems with the current
> implementation and "remedy usability problems in toolbar/dialog XY" is
> not especially helpful as a summary, because it could be applied to
> virtually any whiteboard.
Every whiteboard should focus on a single issue. It will either be UI
element-oriented, like "Make the status bar more usable", task-oriented,
like "Make it easy to pick a custom color", or feature-oriented, like
"Improve color management". If it can't be put into a single sentence, then
it should go into several whiteboards.
Yes, the description is quite generic, but that's actually a plus -- it
doesn't limit the design in any way and makes designers think outside the
> > "What is a
> > whiteboard?" is answered in the "Definition of terms" section.
> Sure it is, but when you are a newcomer, you don't look for
> Terminology first. You look at the summary. As soon as you've
> understood the Whiteboard structure, of course you know there's a
> Terminology section and you can look for it.
If you are a newcomer, you shouldn't be creating whiteboards. This will be
solved once we have a proper whiteboard workflow.
BTW, is it really necessary to change the name of the "Definition of Terms"
section? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.
> > The warning to "not use whiteboards for discussion" isn't really of use
> > whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the
> > whiteboard. I think the sole link under "Discussion" makes it clear
> > for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link.
> Disagree again, if you're a newcomer ... (same reasoning).
Again, newcomers shouldn't be creating whiteboards.
> > BTW, even people that are not subscribed to the list can post, so there's
> > no need to use the "Talk" page on the wiki.
> Absolutely correct, will change.
> > * the listed States do now use primarily nouns
> > ok
> > I like the stronger colors, but I'd prefer to have a red "Out of Scope"
> > header. As LibreOffice doesn't have a red color among its marketing
> > (oddly enough), could you make up one? Orange just doesn't have the same
> > "DON'T do this" warning effect.
> I know. Orange is really odd and the lack of red is an oversight in
> our palette. I'll see what I can do (but I have no idea how that
> palette was created).
> Sometimes I wonder if we hadn't better embraced the Tango colours
> wholesale. That'd have avoided some of the obstacles with branding v/
> theme etc. Obviously, it would have also created new problems, namely
> icons seeming less attractive on Windows systems.
+1 four Tango colors. I don't think they cause icons to seem less
attractive on Windows -- that's a problem of icon design, not of colours.
The new Gnome icon theme is detailed, beautiful, and would fit perfectly
under Windows or Mac OS.
> >> * there is now a sub-head called Owner
> > I disagree with whiteboards having an owner.
> So, for one: two or more owners = no problem.
> For the other: we should have some clear responsibilities, I think. As
> for whether we call that position owner or maintainer ... idk, but I
> found owner to be clearer (but am open to change that).
> Anyway, I thought, we'd agreed upon having maintainers, no?
Yes. I'd prefer to use the term "Maintainer", as the term "Owner" implies
that only the owner is responsible for making key decisions. Basically, the
maintainer's job would be to make sure the whiteboard is readable, clean,
organized, and up-to-date. The maintainer doesn't need a prominent place on
the whiteboard -- perhaps just a comment at the top: <!-- This page is
maintained by User:Atron -->.
> > and
> > that links to bugs, relevant art, and proposals can be added by anyone in
> > the community.
> Sure, I'll change that part of the instructions.
> > It also means that nobody has a superior vote to the rest,
> > which makes the design process more democratic.
> IMHO, we probably don't want to be the democratic enclave in the
> meritocratic community. There are a few reasons why this is a
> meritocracy, the most important being that people that aren't supposed
> to influence your process (of course we still _need_ to remain open to
> people that are currently not part of the community).
Openly voting on the mailing list and on the IRC seems to work well enough
for now -- the people here all seem to be knowledgeable about the current
UI and UX in general, clueless people don't tend to sign up.
I don't want to have people who have a vote superior to the rest.
On the other hand, we do need some design principles to guide our decisions
and ensure consistency, which is what our HIG should become.
> > I think the content of these is self-explanatory if you present examples
> > this content. Again, I'd prefer to keep the whiteboard template looking
> > like a whiteboard. (The "Tentative Design" section hasn't been designed
> > yet, that's why it uses descriptive text.)
> * Terminology – it's an extra definition, I think it doesn't hurt.
It doesn't, but "Definition of Terms" seems a better fit as it's
self-explanatory. Also, for me, "terminology" implies only
"advanced/technical terms", whereas the section can also hold common terms
that aren't clearly defined or can have several definitions.
* Bugs – can be a hard-to-understand term for less technical people.
Put it in the "Definition of Terms" section, then.
> * Personas – this definitely needs an explanation (we've had a few
> design team members who didn't know what to make of it at first).
Again, put it in the "Definition of Terms" section.
> * Relevant Art – we might get away without the text, I guess.
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
|Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text||Jay Lozier <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|[libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text||"Stefan Knorr (Astron)" <email@example.com>|
|Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text||"Mirek M." <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text||"Stefan Knorr (Astron)" <email@example.com>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [libreoffice-design] Windows 8 version?
- Next by Date: [libreoffice-design] Proposed Idea Workflow
- Previous by thread: Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text
- Next by thread: Re: [libreoffice-design] Updated Whiteboard template with more instructional text