2:43 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malini Rao" <mrao(a)redhat.com>
To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
Cc: users(a)ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>, "Eli
Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen"
<ecohen(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:50:43 PM
Subject: Re: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
Hello everyone,
We received a few responses to the email below that were very helpful and it
seemed like while some people preferred one over the other concept, there
was a general need to see the power management card details in a handy
manner. Taking all the feedback into account, we have made an iteration to
the concept and want to present it back to you for your feedback. Please see
attached. In this version, the dialog presents the following flow from top
to bottom -
1. enable power management
2. Then Select which cards to use
3. Then indicate to the system whether those cards should be used
concurrently or sequentially.
Within Step 2 in the flow, the details for each card are collapsed by default
but can easily be expanded.
Well , few comments :
1) The Proxy Preference field is per Host not per card , it seems in your suggestion that
it is per card.
Therefor , it should be moved to the top of the screen below the Enable Power
Management checkbox
2) The + for adding card is redundant, currently we are not supporting that , only 2 cards
are permitted , when we will support that we will have to re-factor this design anyway
since the concurrent or sequential can be treated differently. for example , you may have
2 concurrent APC cards along with a sequential IPMI
Besides feedback on the attached mockup, we also have some questions that we
would like some clarifications on -
1. When power management is enabled on a host, will at least one card NEED to
be enabled? If yes, is that always the Primary card ( in other words, should
the primary card ever be disabled?)
Yes , and it is always teh primary card
2. Currently, in the mockup, we have checkboxes to enable and disable certain
cards and also the ability to add cards. Should there be an ability to
remove cards too in addition to turning them on/ off or is it ok to just
add/ remove and take out the checkboxes all together?
Currently only a static design with places for primary/secondary definitions , no
add/remove is required for 3.3
Thanks
Malini
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malini Rao" <mrao(a)redhat.com>
To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
Cc: users(a)ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>, "Eli
Mesika"
<emesika(a)redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>,
"Eldan Hildesheham"
<ehildesh(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:50:46 PM
Subject: Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
Hello all,
In taking a look at the current implementation of Hosts> Power management, we
have come up with a couple of approaches on improving this from a UX
perspective
-http://www.ovirt.org/Talk:Community#UXD_Proposals_for_Host_Power_management.
We want your thoughts and input on what approach makes more sense from a
user's perspective before fine tuning the UI.
Thanks
Malini
User Experience designer