12:36 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
To: "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com>, "Malini Rao"
<mrao(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <info(a)eldanet.com>,
"Eldan
Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek"
<tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:30:09 AM
Subject: Re: static header only in VM dialog?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:18:20 PM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Malini Rao" <mrao(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan
Hildesheim"
> > <info(a)eldanet.com>,
> > "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>, derez(a)redhat.com,
> > "engine-devel"
> > <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:53:47 AM
> > Subject: static header only in VM dialog?
> >
> > when reviewing the code for the "redesign of vm related dialogs",
Daniel
> > has
> > raised an interesting question: Why do we want the static header only in
> > VM
> > dialog?
> >
> > (I assume that he refers to the top section of the New VM dialog as seen
> > in
> > [1], which
> > contains the DC/Cluster, Quota, etc information, and is "static",
i.e.,
> > it
> > is
> > always
> > displayed, regardless of the selected side-tab within the dialog)
> >
> > I agree with what Daniel is implying here: for consistency, we would
> > probably
> > want to
> > introduce this static header to other dialogs, at least to the ones that
> > also
> > contain
> > side-tabs in which it makes sense to turn the "header" to static
> > [e.g.
> > "New Host" (which contains a DC + Cluster "header") - see
> > http://oi39.tinypic.com/2z84xnp.jpg,
> > "New Cluster" (which contains a DC "header") - see
> > http://oi40.tinypic.com/2vmyj2x.jpg]
> >
> > [I assume, of course, that all the VM-like dialogs (e.g. New/Edit
> > VM-Pool)
> > will also have
> > static headers - I don't know if the patch already takes care of that or
> > not]
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [@Daniel - if you had something else in mind, and/or other dialogs in
> > mind
> > -
> > please feel free
> > to add/amend/etc]
>
> Besides consistency matters, I wanted to understand what's the motivation
> of
> keeping these widgets static. I.e. is it an essential preparation for the
> new
> instance type dialog or a new concept for tab based dialogs
> (as DC/Cluster values aren't necessarily relevant for each tab in the
> dialog)
[maybe Tomas/Eldan/Malini can help here as well]
these static widgets (as well as the type ahead list box [1], for example)
are part of
the instance types feature that had its design details published in [2] and
[3], and the
implementation was done according to this design. I don't see any reason to
not utilize
this newly-introduced concept in other side-tab-based dialogs as well, if it
makes sense
(ui consistency considerations are sufficient, IMO, but I could be wrong -
maybe it is
relevant/correct to introduce this new concept only in the VM-like dialogs).
regarding the specific concern about the DC/Cluster values that aren't
necessarily relevant
for each side-tab in the dialog: I agree with that statement, however:
- putting the "Instance Type" drop-down at the top static section is very
useful (see [4]
for explanation), and as the Instance Types list is derived from the selected
DC, it makes
sense (to me) to put the DC in that top static section as well.
- the DC/Cluster are relevant for some of the tabs in the dialog (Host,
Resource Allocation?)
Only for Host.
Resource Allocation is directly affected by the selected template.
Therefore, it sounds very confusing to me...
Unless we add template to the static header as well?
(which will be odd for the other tabs).
So I still don't get the motivation UX-wise.
E.g. it seems really weird to change the entire DC from Console tab
(or, as a matter of fact, from most other tabs).
In the new instance type dialog, which tabs could be directly affected by DC/Cluster?
IIUC, only Host? Do we really need a static header just for this tab?
so for consistency-within-the-dialog considerations, it is probably a
good
idea to simply
always show these fields within this top static section.
[there is a good chance that I am missing your point here - please correct me
if necessary]
[1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14936/
[2] http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Instance_Types
[3] http://www.ovirt.org/images/9/9e/Instance_type.pdf
[4] whenever changing the "Instance Type" value, you can automatically see
how these changes
affect the fields in the current tab on which you are standing (e.g. if you
are standing on
the "System" side-tab, you can change the "Instance Type" selected
item and
immediately see
the changes within the "System" side-tab contents), and vice-versa: if you
are changing a value
that was originally propagated from the instance-type, you will see the
instance-type automatically
change to "custom"/"not applicable" as a result, so no need to
"jump" between
side-tabs in order
to observe these changes.
>
> >
> > ----
> > Thanks,
> > Einav
> >
> > [1] http://www.ovirt.org/images/9/9e/Instance_type.pdf
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: derez(a)redhat.com
> > > To: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com>, "Einav
Cohen"
> > > <ecohen(a)redhat.com>,
> > > "Frank Kobzik" <fkobzik(a)redhat.com>,
> > > "Eldan Hildesheim" <info(a)eldanet.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:05:38 PM
> > > Subject: Change in ovirt-engine[master]: userportal,webadmin: redesign
> > > of
> > > vm related dialogs
> > >
> > > Daniel Erez has posted comments on this change.
> > >
> > > Change subject: userportal,webadmin: redesign of vm related dialogs
> > > ......................................................................
> > >
> > >
> > > Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)
> > >
> > > Code looks good.
> > > A few questions regarding the design:
> > > 1. Why do we want the static header only in VM dialog?
> > > 2. DC/Host are really relevant for all tabs?
> > > 3. Is it just a preparation for the final instance type dialog?
> > > 4. If it's indeed merely preparation, shouldn't it be merged only
once
> > > we
> > > have the full picture of the new dialog?
> > >
> > > ....................................................
> > > File
> > >
frontend/webadmin/modules/gwt-common/src/main/java/org/ovirt/engine/ui/common/widget/dialog/tab/DialogTabPanel.ui.xml
> > > Line 21:
> > > Line 22: .header {
> > > Line 23: background-color: #D3D3D3;
> > > Line 24: border-bottom: 1px solid #CED8DF;
> > > Line 25: margin-bottom: 15px;
> > > is it supposed to be that large?
> > > Line 26: padding-top: 6px;
> > > Line 27: margin-top: 4px;
> > > Line 28: margin-right: 3px;
> > > Line 29: display: none;
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To view, visit http://gerrit.ovirt.org/14635
> > > To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.ovirt.org/settings
> > >
> > > Gerrit-MessageType: comment
> > > Gerrit-Change-Id: Icad8098e286f821da25fac22fd0a840a42f105c9
> > > Gerrit-PatchSet: 5
> > > Gerrit-Project: ovirt-engine
> > > Gerrit-Branch: master
> > > Gerrit-Owner: Tomas Jelinek <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Daniel Erez <derez(a)redhat.com>
> > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Einav Cohen <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Eldan Hildesheim <info(a)eldanet.com>
> > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Frank Kobzik <fkobzik(a)redhat.com>
> > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Tomas Jelinek <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Vojtech Szocs <vszocs(a)redhat.com>
> > >
> >
>