incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lin Yuan <yuanlin....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:56:30 GMT
I have updated the patch and remove the ""Fatal Error" string on warning
dialog title.  Can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78532
About the warning message, I suggest keep original string but not add
"Opening this instance could result in ?????". Now open the instance could
result in crash. I don't think we need to tell user about this. It's just a
feature that AOO do not support.

Thanks,
Lin Yuan

2012/7/2 晓利 段 <iloaixnaud@yahoo.com.cn>

> For the string, I have the following suggestions:
>
> The yellow symbol does not match the title "Fatal Error."  If it is truly
> a only a warning, make the title "Warning."
>
> As for wording, you should start out by telling the user what could happen
> in the situation. Then start a new paragraph and tell them what to do to
> avoid that. Something like:
> "Another instance of this application is open in a different terminal
> session. Opening this instance could result in ?????.
> Close the first instance before you open the application on a different
> terminal."
>
> Thanks!
> Tracy Duan
>
> --- 12年6月30日,周六, zhangjf <zhangjf@apache.org> 写道:
>
> 发件人: zhangjf <zhangjf@apache.org>
> 主题: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
> "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
> App Certification Kit
> 收件人: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> 日期: 2012年6月30日,周六,上午8:50
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> > 4 hours is too short.  This is an international project with
> contributors in different time zones around the globe.  For example, when
> you posted this message, it was 01:26 where I am (utc-0700).
> >
> > I suggest that you either do CTR (commit it and be prepared for it to be
> rolled back, however unlikely) or do an RTC (review, then commit) that
> provides adequate time for interested parties to review and respond).  If
> you want to ensure that CTR does receive review, report that you are doing
> so; also use a commit message that suggests review is desired.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
>
> Thanks for the reminder.  I am always willing to rollback the commit
> if there is any objective to the committed new string appears. I will
> monitor the discussion for a few more time.
>
> zhangjf
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: zhangjf [mailto:zhangjf@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 01:26
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8
> certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions"
> is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
> >
> > I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> > only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
> >  And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
> > title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
> > translation.
> >
> > If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> > string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
> >
> > thanks,
> > zhangjf
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zhangjf@apache.org> wrote:
> >> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
> >> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
> >>
> >> zhangjf
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
> >> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> >>>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
> >>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion,  I think it
is also one
> >>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to
catch up
> >>>>>>> translation.  It should have no impacts on function without
> committing
> >>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and
string
> first.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running
> localize
> >>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the
> translation on
> >>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge
it
> back
> >>>>>> in svn.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements.
> Can
> >>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings
for
> >>>>> review?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
> >>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482
> .
> >>>
> >>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
> >>>
> >>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I
> don't
> >>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
> >>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
> >>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1
to
> move
> >>>>> forward immediately.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> zhangjf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
> >>>>>>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent
and
> important.
> >>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do
it
> immediately,
> >>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any opinions
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user
profile is
> locked and can
> >>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested
on Windows Server
> 2008, AOO
> >>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not
to really
> support one user
> >>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions
case.
> According to the
> >>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
> >>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple
user sessions or
> remote access,
> >>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from
this kind of
> session.
> >>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog
and exit in
> this case. So
> >>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions
for one user
> but the UX is
> >>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for
3.4.1 or not.
> It will
> >>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to
organize in time
> (e.g.
> >>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Joost.Andrae@gmx.de>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server
session you have user
> profiles for each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with
Terminal Services twice
> using
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is
no real problem to
> get OpenOffice
> >>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi
user environment
> (MS TS,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the
same user connects
> a second time
> >>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with
his profile data.
> If you want to
> >>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion
it's not really needed
> because
> >>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one
user accesses the same
> user profile
> >>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just my two  Cents, Joost
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message