[Kimchi-devel] UI Change Request - Navigation

Walter Niklaus niklaus at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Oct 13 14:27:02 UTC 2015


Hi Samuel,

today I got reminded that we have to pass the accessability tests with 
our UI and was searching if the hamburger meneu design would be in the 
way of this requirement.  I didn't find any clear statement about it but 
I got a lot of hits on why to not use hamburger menus:
http://courtneyengle.com/2014/06/24/mobile-responsive-navigation-accessibility/ 

http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/24/before-the-hamburger-button-kills-you/
https://lmjabreu.com/post/why-and-how-to-avoid-hamburger-menus/

In order to get some feedback or new ideas I contacted a UI-guy I know 
from a former project and he pointed me to this:
http://www.ibm.com/design/language/framework/visual/introduction

This is in fact reflecting exactly the concept we need.

Please let me know what you think about it.

Thanks, Walter.

On 12.10.2015 16:03, Walter Niklaus wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
>
> my comments are from a user point of view, I'm relying on your 
> insights when comes to technical doabilty.
>
> Thanks, Walter.
>
> On 09.10.2015 21:07, Samuel Henrique De Oliveira Guimaraes wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Although a lot of articles discourages mixing top-level tabs with 
>> sidebars, I think in this specific scenario we can make these 
>> patterns work but we have to make sure that the users won’t be 
>> redirected to a blank landing page or we’ll have to create one.
>>
>> For instance, suppose Containers second-level first item has three 
>> children, then when clicking in “Containers” on the top bar, the user 
>> should be redirected to the first item from this list (in the third 
>> level).
>>
>> I’ve done some prototypes in the past with similar patterns and for 
>> the standard user who navigates on web, this pattern of navigation is 
>> confusing. However the average virtualization, cloud, storage and 
>> network operator users are usually facing UIs more complex than this.
>>
> Good point. Makes sense to me.
>>
>> Between the two proposals I’m voting for proposal 1 but I prefer 
>> using Hamburger Button to trigger a floating grouped-menu. This was 
>> proposed a few months ago in the ML.
>>
>> I was in a workshop with some developers from Globo.com (Brazilian 
>> news portal) two years ago when they were implementing this menu. The 
>> current version is way more polished than the one they presented at 
>> the time and I really like how it turned. I’m attaching a screenshot, 
>> but you can see it live with animations at http://g1.globo.com/.
>>
> I like a lot of the aspects from what's implemented on the globo.com page:
>   - the menue doesn't take away any real estate from your screen, 
> therefore having an additional level of navigation isn't such a big issue.
>   - you can get to your target menue in one click
>   - from what I see, it gives you the possibility to turn back on the 
> previous level tabs with just one click.  Did I get that right ?
> If all this is right, then I'm perfectly ok with this proposal.
>>
>> This discussion also brings another question, should new plugins be 
>> restricted only to new tabs on the first-level top bar or should we 
>> create some sort of “path” in tab-ext.xml? I.e a new plugin can be 
>> appended to a specific region on Hosts Dashboard, on the second-level 
>> (since Aline suggested moving Peer hosts to that area) or even create 
>> a new level on a menu option that previously had no child items.
>>
> Our base assumption was that plugins wouldn't be restricted to new 
> tabs only when using the new framework.
> Based on that assumption we decided that the functionality which was 
> in the Administration tab in the old design, would now be extending 
> the functionality of the Host tab in the new design.
> Ideally a new plugin could be extending functionality on any level, 
> and even on multiple levels.
> Here the use cases I'm aware of:
>   -  plugin as a new tab --> for example containers may be one
>   -  plugin extending an existing tab
>           --> Ginger extending the Host tab which was created by 
> Ginger-common
>           --> Aline's example with the peer hosts
>   -  plugin extending one or more individual UI-panels with functionality
>           --> Gingers390x plugin offering "Enable/Add Network", 
> "Enable/Add SAN Adapter" Action-button on the Networking and Storage 
> screens
>                since these are platform specific functions implemented 
> in this specific plugin
>
> Samuel, could we cover all these use-cases via the approach you 
> mentioned as the "sort of path in tab-ext.xml" ? I guess that would be 
> great because it sounds very flexible.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Samuel
>>
>> *From:*Jan Schneider [mailto:schneidj at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> *Sent:* sexta-feira, 9 de outubro de 2015 13:06
>> *To:* Samuel Henrique De Oliveira Guimaraes 
>> <samuel.guimaraes at eldorado.org.br>; Aline Manera 
>> <alinefm at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> *Cc:* kimchi-devel at ovirt.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Kimchi-devel] UI Change Request - Navigation
>>
>> Hi Samuel,
>>
>> I just had a discussion with Walter. We found that we need up to two 
>> navigation levels under Host. The third navigation level however is 
>> not always required.
>> Please have a look at the two attached proposals to understand our 
>> requirements.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Jan and Walter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/2015 04:36 PM, Samuel Henrique De Oliveira Guimaraes wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Jan,
>>
>>     I’m not sure if I’m following you. Did you mean changing the
>>     second-level navigation to tabs instead of panel areas? If so
>>     should we merge Hosts and Admin tab in one page and collapse the
>>     panels like old-ui behavior (maybe keeping the dashboard
>>     statistics on top unchanged) but with new-ui styles OR add two
>>     new tabs to the toolbar?
>>
>>     I think the concept of accordion/collapsible elements works for
>>     Admin, but I don’t see it working for the panels on Hosts tab,
>>     unless we group Basic Information, Repositories and Debug Reports
>>     in one single collapsible area.
>>
>>     I also discussed with Aline if we should move Peer Hosts from top
>>     to the toolbar and make it a plugin. Here’s a mockup I did with
>>     Chrome:
>>
>>     .... deleted images(Walter Niklaus)
>>
>>
>>     The reason why I think all panels in these pages can’t be merged
>>     in one tab is because if all panels were collapsed, the page
>>     height would be around 3757 pixels. If admin items were hidden,
>>     it would be around 2108 tall. I believe we would have to set the
>>     accordions to hide other items when one item is collapsed.  They
>>     don’t seem that tall in the PDF because the images were resized.
>>
>>     I believe we have to study this following a “mobile-first”
>>     approach because once we all agree with the new design, even if
>>     we don’t include the mobile design in 2.0 release, we’ll have to
>>     keep some markup ready for responsive design to receive the new
>>     styles. I think this new tab design would need some updates in
>>     tab-ext.xml and the JS files before 2.0 release, assuming other
>>     people or teams would start developing new plugins from 2.0 and
>>     on. If we update how the tabs are built in the UI from 2.0 to 2.1
>>     for instance, that may turn against us with retro compatibility
>>     issues.
>>
>>     .... deleted image(Walter Niklaus)
>>
>>     Regards,
>>
>>     Samuel
>>
>>     *From:*kimchi-devel-bounces at ovirt.org
>>     <mailto:kimchi-devel-bounces at ovirt.org>[mailto:kimchi-devel-bounces at ovirt.org]
>>     *On Behalf Of *Jan Schneider
>>     *Sent:* quinta-feira, 8 de outubro de 2015 13:10
>>     *To:* Aline Manera
>>     <mailto:alinefm at linux.vnet.ibm.com><alinefm at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>     *Cc:* kimchi-devel at ovirt.org <mailto:kimchi-devel at ovirt.org>
>>     *Subject:* [Kimchi-devel] UI Change Request - Navigation
>>
>>     Hello Aline,
>>
>>     I refer to the latest version of the
>>     User Interface Design Specification - Kimchi, 2014-12-23 (aka UI
>>     Design Spec)
>>     which defines the following structure of functionalities:
>>
>>     *Host* (second level navigation via panel areas)
>>        Performance (System Statistics)
>>        Basic Information
>>        Repositories
>>        Debug Report
>>        Software Updates
>>
>>     *Guests*
>>         no second level functionalities
>>
>>     *Templates*
>>         no second level functionalities
>>
>>     *Storage*
>>         no second level functionalities
>>
>>     *Networks*
>>         no second level functionalities
>>
>>     *Administration* (second level navigation via collapse/expand)
>>        Firmware Update
>>        SEP Configuration
>>        Power Options
>>        Configuration Backup
>>        Network Configuration
>>        SAN Adapters
>>        Sensor Monitor
>>
>>
>>
>>     *Problem Statement*
>>
>>     We already decided to move all Administration functionalities to
>>     Host (currently not updated in the UI Design Spec).
>>
>>     We are currently facing the following problems:
>>     1) Host now contains 12 second level functionalities, all other
>>     (Guests, Templates, ...) none.
>>          We need to introduce a second level navigation for Host
>>     other than collapse/expand
>>     2) The navigation bar elements Storage and Network (refering to
>>     Virtualization) also exist in the Host context.
>>          This might confuse the user.
>>
>>
>>
>>     *Proposal*
>>
>>     The described problems can be solved with the following changes:
>>
>>     1) Introducing a second level navigation
>>     2) Changing the structure of functionalities as follows:
>>
>>     *Host*
>>        Performance (System Statistics)
>>        Basic Information
>>        Repositories
>>        Debug Report
>>        Software Updates
>>        Firmware Update
>>        SEP Configuration
>>        Power Options
>>        Configuration Backup
>>        Network Configuration
>>        SAN Adapters
>>        Sensor Monitor
>>
>>     *Virtualization*
>>        Guests
>>        Templates
>>        Storage
>>        Networks
>>
>>     *Containers (future extension)*
>>        to be defined
>>
>>
>>
>>     Let's start a discussion on this.
>>
>>     Kind regards
>>     Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kimchi-devel mailing list
>> Kimchi-devel at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kimchi-devel mailing list
> Kimchi-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/kimchi-devel/attachments/20151013/2b4e2a0f/attachment.html>


More information about the Kimchi-devel mailing list