Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D59F3EBD5 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:25:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69879 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2013 20:25:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-bloodhound-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 69853 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2013 20:25:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 69845 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jan 2013 20:25:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:25:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.214.178] (HELO mail-ob0-f178.google.com) (209.85.214.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:25:28 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id wd20so884523obb.9 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:25:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=zc6OW7hrdLFc49QQW6s6nUIkfokvfJlEySeZCutoC78=; b=WyIDHXEuBZwz8CDVGuDoOM3wKajBE8ioR77pj5y7v8jGfWmHOGHtUgLS8yKj6HBexr WM33Rj1ydMo5MfzcvEJgv+syeQtBfKIBrOR+4WS7xvp6AfCeLpV/cQckf9UeCG8hSQla MNui050+fdyIDevuJYBCdcufvMeAItztL+DnYhj+ux1W/6f0Bf67A4LzIjpjViTshLkT hQ0Rd8MNlafMr9vKFZGZXDa38bUUXIp1C9ghxHOkMUlpbfcSz9CJ9HVd7gFeig4bbmaG K3or6fdmefP8OpCsJfl0X7LOp5TMio+n6hN15NSqIYkyWKz27tl3M7BaRYggX3IWuP8x otnA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.7.199 with SMTP id l7mr1717895oea.136.1359491107402; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.153.201 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:25:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <51080E48.10604@wandisco.com> References: <50F91C2A.6010307@wandisco.com> <51080E48.10604@wandisco.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:25:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: User comments on ticket modification UI From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_Ko=C5=BEelj?= To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1ed4c88359b04d473307d X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6yaf5YWixEmrWUEFx5BGijI1hfPSOiEOHK4amIPPqOBX38rBtLLF2mm2IOFbsY9a4lR3f X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8fb1ed4c88359b04d473307d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 29 January 2013 19:00, Gary Martin wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry to go back to the details! > > > On 26 January 2013 12:13, Andrej Golcov andrej@digiverse.si>> wrote: > > Just want to somehow summarise issues we discussed about and initiate > further discussion. > > - After update, result page scroll is confusing. At the time of > being, it is scrolled to the result #comment. > I guess, we have consensus that result page should be scrolled to the > top? Link to the comment can be shown in popup. > > > Without a means to add comments from the top of the page, I would not > advocate this approach yet. The activity feed does give us some > justification in going this direction on the basis that we can still see > what we have just added which is a good confirmation of what is changed. On > the other hand, an eventual change to submitting with AJAX should make this > redundant. > > > - Modify button in navigation bar acts odd. There is suggestion to > move it out of nav bar. > > > Another question is whether we will actually have enough items to bother > with the scrollspy at all. Does anyone actually make use of this at the > moment? > > I would hope that there is not enough items to warent the scroll spy. The thing feels like a fix for a problem that should not be there in the first place, but that is highly subjective viewpoint :) > > - "Update (leave)" caption of update button confuses user. > There is aslo a suggestion to move workflow actions out of Modify > functionality as separate action. We need more feedback and mockups on > this. > > - "Submit changes" button duplicates "Update (leave)" button. > > > It probably makes sense always to have a submit button visible so that > users always know where to find it. My only worry is that users will find > it more natural for a submit button to be with the comment. > > If I take a step back, writing a comment with each ticket edit sounds like a good practice similar to commit messages. No need for "Add comment" buttons in edit mode then, display the comment text box as part of the edit form. > > > - If Change history is long, "Add comment" field may not be visible > to user. There is suggestion to collapse Change History in Modify > mode. Or may be put Add comment before Change History in read-only and > modify modes? > > > Collapsing the change history feels a little bit unnecessary to me and > could be annoying if you had to make sure you knew everything you needed > before entering the modify mode or be forced to find your place in the > comments again. An add comment button always being visible seems to be the > best option to me at the moment. > > > Did I forget something? > Please add your experience feedback. > > Regards, Andrej > > > Another question is where the comment textarea should be located. I have > toyed with the idea of moving it to the top of the activity area into what > will eventually be part of the sticky region but I feel that it would not > really be big enough. The edit ticket and comment buttons could be there of > course. Another alternative might be that we just have some kind of pop-up > comment editor but we would still have to make sense of how this interacted > with the modify mode - I don't particularly want to stop people writing a > comment and then doing other ticket edit events. > > I have also found myself questioning the requirement for an edit mode at > all. What were the reasons for this again? > I have been asking myself similar question as well multiple times (not just on Bloodhound). I guess it does offer some kind of protection agains unwanted ticket changes (...did I just do copy or paste on that field, #$@! maybe I should refresh the page just in case...) > > Cheers, > Gary > --e89a8fb1ed4c88359b04d473307d--