Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.cn;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=gTPb48cSTa3qHe43c7HezVDLSxzJM+CsdLIx208xZRKC+tNhdNEMFWs220EdGs0TyPk3fuNwruuqA73/pmCSOit6pqBGLAjO0HAWbMEuXCL4lB65hC68XVjl7s8ayXG7MOA8AbmzVh/O6tUf4aURLeRrxLRTSLl8bDcjgl79Xqk=;
Message-ID: <1341196397.37784.YahooMailClassic@web15301.mail.cnb.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:33:17 +0800 (CST)
From: =?utf-8?B?5pmT5YipIOautQ==?= <iloaixnaud@yahoo.com.cn>
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
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJbycq3rc6s6mp-YvYwWdSC6TOminktKg3O1eDE+jfkX+kBbPQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="1827373159-1575903580-1341196397=:37784"

--1827373159-1575903580-1341196397=:37784
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For the string, I have the following suggestions:

The yellow symbol does not match the title "Fatal Error."=C2=A0 If it is tr=
uly 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 av=
oid that. Something like:
"Another instance of this application is open in a different terminal sessi=
on. Opening this instance could result in ?????.
Close the first instance before you open the application on a different ter=
minal."

Thanks!
Tracy Duan

--- 12=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5=EF=BC=8C=E5=91=A8=E5=85=AD, zhangjf <z=
hangjf@apache.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A

=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: zhangjf <zhangjf@apache.org>
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certific=
ation]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not te=
sted by Windows App Certification Kit
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@=
acm.org
=E6=97=A5=E6=9C=9F: 2012=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5,=E5=91=A8=E5=85=AD,=
=E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=888:50

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> 4 hours is too short. =C2=A0This is an international project with contrib=
utors in different time zones around the globe. =C2=A0For 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 prov=
ides adequate time for interested parties to review and respond). =C2=A0If =
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.
>
> =C2=A0- Dennis
>

Thanks for the reminder.=C2=A0 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]Tes=
t for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by W=
indows App Certification Kit
>
> I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=3D78521&action=3Ddi=
ff.
> =C2=A0And 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, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt
>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt
>>>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, =C2=A0I think it is als=
o one
>>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>>>> translation. =C2=A0It should have no impacts on function without co=
mmitting
>>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string firs=
t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running local=
ize
>>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translatio=
n on
>>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it b=
ack
>>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. C=
an
>>>>> 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=3D7848=
2.
>>>
>>> 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 m=
ove
>>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt
>>>>>>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and impor=
tant.
>>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediate=
ly,
>>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locke=
d 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 rem=
ote access,
>>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of sessi=
on.
>>>>>>>>>> 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 profil=
es 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 (M=
S 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 =E2=82=AC Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

--1827373159-1575903580-1341196397=:37784--