COmanage Developers List

[Benn Oshrin <>]

On 3/23/14 2:47 PM, Arlen Johnson wrote:

> I have a few questions about the co_people pages.  I've included some
> screenshots for illustration.  Please note that most of these pages have
> not passed through final polish (some of which depends on answers to the
> following questions).   I apologize in advance for being long-winded.  (-:
>
>   *      Compare / View:
>       o view.ctp is referred to as "compare" from the co_people index.
>         It is called "view" on the page.  Is it intended to serve both
>         purposes?  If so, I suggest the following:

view.ctp and compare.ctp are both symlinks to the Standard/view.ctp, 
which just incorporates CoPeople/fields.inc. fields.inc does different 
things based on how it was called.

>           + refer to this view (in navigation) as "View".  On the view
>             page, stack the listings vertically.  Then, provide a
>             checkbox (or button) that will allow a side-by-side
>             comparison such as currently exists.  This will allow the
>             end-user to pick the layout as they wish, and it make this
>             layout more consistent with the "edit" view.

That sounds fine.

>             In other words, we can allow the user to toggle between this
>             (vertical stack):
>
>             and this (side-by-side):
>
>             (note that the names do not float side-by-side like the
>             other fields do.  Should they?)

Probably they should.

>       o When editing subsections of a person (roles, identifiers, org
>         ids, etc), there is no navigation to return to where we were
>         previously.  This could take the form of a "back" button, a
>         sidebar menu, or breadcrumbs.  Are there reasons this should not
>         be pursued (in other words, is there some reason that knowing
>         where to go back to is a big issue), and do you have a
>         preference?  We'll want to implement breadcrumbs regardless, but
>         I think using the sidebar consistently as a means of navigation
>         is good.  I'm leaning towards implementing it in these subsections.

We ended up with so many issues that we dropped the "back" button 
wherever we had it. For this, we could have a "Return to CO Person" type 
button, or just use breadcrumbs if they're prominent enough.

>   * With regard to the sidebar: I have begun to implement some
>     rudimentary responsive features to allow for better viewing on
>     desktops at different sizes and on tablets.  In the wider modes,
>     like the screenshots above, we get the sidebar.  On tablet portrait
>     or phone, the sidebar moves to the top, like so:

I like the concept. We'll need to clean up the layout when it's on top.

>     Not much attention has been given to smartphones, and I suggest that
>     any real attention can wait until after 1.0.

Sure.

>   * With regard to the "subsections" such as organizational identity: I
>     intend to keep the tabbed view intact - largely to distinguish these
>     modes from the more global "edit" and "view/compare" modes.  I've
>     done some minor clean-up on these views to tighten up the styles.
>     For example:

I'm good with incremental changes.

>     This screenshot is a good example where a link in the sidebar could
>     take us back to where we were.
>
>   * co_people index:
>
>       o The co_people index is built as a stack of accordion widgets.
>         As of now, the accordion opens to reveal user roles.  Is this as
>         you want it?  Are there more pieces of information that would be
>         valuable here, or is this pretty close to right?

The basic concept was that you could see more information about a person 
without having to go to that person's view page. I'm not a fan of the 
current organization. The accordion looks bad as implemented. We can 
keep the accordion concept or move to a hover/mouse over version.

For now, assume those are the correct pieces of information. We've 
discussed this on and off, but don't have an obvious set of missing things.

>       o A good deal more clean up is coming to the people index; at the
>         moment, it still looks fairly close to the original:
>
>         I've removed rounded edges on most items (you'll note that even
>         the "logout" button is no longer rounded, Benn ;-) - but I'll
>         probably also scale back the "glassy" UI look from this
>         listing.  If you are looking for more radical changes, now is a
>         good time to suggest them.

I'm looking for a more radical overhaul of the person index, but I'm not 
sure that we know what that is yet. We could discuss in Denver.

>   * I took some liberty with the "enroll" form, with the goal of
>     cleaning and simplifying the layout.  I note that there are blocks
>     where the field titles are redundant - e.g. Role, Email Address,
>     Affiliation (perhaps others).  In these cases, are you comfortable
>     not showing these titles and instead let the field titles stand alone?

We've discussed this before. It is redundant, but it looks bad if 
omitted from either place. Feel free to work out a solution.

Thanks,

-Benn-