[Users] Feedback/ input needed on Host power management

[Eli Mesika]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Malini Rao" <mrao at redhat.com>
> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> Cc: users at ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>, "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen"
> <ecohen at redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh at 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 at redhat.com>
> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> Cc: users at ovirt.org, "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>, "Eli Mesika"
> <emesika at redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheham"
> <ehildesh at 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