What I got so far as a feedback when implementing oVirt or RHEV systems is, that
"Power Management" is totally unclear.
Most users don't see a reason for configuring power management or don't understand
what this will do.
So in my opinion the greatest improvement would be to rename power management to
"Fencing" as this is more clear to everyone who already had to do with
Beside the naming, I figured out that having a second power management / fence method is
very uncommon (maybe you have other experience here, but all my oVirt/RHEV/RHEL
Cluster/pacemaker setups only have 1 fence method).
So my preferred workflow would be:
- click on Fencing :)
- configure first fence method
- ignore second method
So approch 2 is too much clicking for me and in some way confuses me.
Approach 1 seems is my favorite, but I would add a space after primary power management
card , add text "Optional" and move "Define 2 Cards" and "Power
management card behavior" below the primary power management card (above the
secondary power management card).
So users with 1 card don't have to think about these options and don't get
confused by them. Users with 2 cards can configure the second card and choose the
I hope I could describe my thoughts understandable...
From:Malini Rao <mrao(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday 14th August 2013 20:50
To: engine-devel <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
Cc: Eldan Hildesheim <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>; users(a)ovirt.org
Subject: [Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management
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.
User Experience designer
Users mailing list