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 sentence
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.
"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.
The warning to "not use whiteboards for discussion" isn't really of use for
whiteboard creators, but rather for people who want to discuss the
whiteboard. I think the sole link under "Discussion" makes it clear enough
for all whiteboard visitors that all discussions take place on that link.
Disagree again, if you're a newcomer ... (same reasoning).
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
Cool.
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 colors
(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.
* 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?
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).
I think the content of these is self-explanatory if you present examples of
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.)
So...
* Terminology – it's an extra definition, I think it doesn't hurt.
* Bugs – can be a hard-to-understand term for less technical people.
* 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).
* Relevant Art – we might get away without the text, I guess.
Regards,
Astron.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.