[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[libreoffice-design] Re: RFE process between QA and UX


All,

sophi wrote
> So following the discussion we had yesterday during the QA meeting
> (thanks Jay for your participation :) we agreed that issues created by
> UX/Design members will be set as NEW and assigned to UX-advice.
> The QA wiki pages will be modified to reflect this change.
> ...

>From the Design hangout minutes (w/minor reformatting).

Bugzilla workflow proposal after the QA [and UX/Design] team meetings.

1) issues opened as an enhancement of UX or in UI/Design elements
should always be handled in Bugzilla UX-advise component.

2) opened as UNCONFIRMED by anyone, or directly NEW by Design/UX
team participants (including any Devs and QA folks)

3) Design/UX team participants, or any QA review should go ahead
and adjust the component to UX-advise and NEW

4) Design/UX team should review proposal for completeness, ask OP
for needed details, and add to weekly agenda

5) while active, pending Design/UX consideration retain NEW, or
NEEDINFO

6) if/when "voted" down from UX or Design perspective, close as
WONTFIX

7) if/when approved--retain as NEW, but what then?

Q: should we retain issues in BZ UX-advise, or change BZ component
to UI as now happens, or change to the affected LO component?
Q: UI vs. specific component, any risk of losing track of
Design/UX recommendations?
Q: should we track the BZ issues on the Wiki anyway?
Q: for Devs seeking guidance, how to communicate design or UI
decisions?
Q: any need to convey prioritization of enhancement or UI change,
or impact on UX?

And here are the guidelines now posted to the QA/Bug Triage Wiki

UX Enhancements

Any bugs which cover enhancements to the UI/UX of LibreOffice should be
given to the UX Team

Change the Component to ux-advise
Update the Status
If the request looks complete and plausible, Status -> NEW
If the request seems incomplete or needs explaining, Status ->
NEEDINFO

Leave a comment along the lines of:
"UX Team -- please take a look at this enhancement. Thanks!"

Happy to pick this up again in the new year if there is any more to be
resolved--we want folks to be happy with the arrangements. But more
importantly to feel welcome to participate on both QA and the UX /Design
reviews

Stuart



--
View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFE-process-between-QA-and-UX-tp4132849p4133375.html
Sent from the Design mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@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

References:
[libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXSophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXJan Holesovsky <kendy@collabora.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXSophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXJan Holesovsky <kendy@collabora.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXSophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXJay Philips <philipz85@hotmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] RFE process between QA and UXSophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
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.