[Design] [Sum] May 29 - Jun 4
sheila at osafoundation.org
Wed Jun 7 16:56:57 PDT 2006
New Design Discussions:
Mimi posted a new proposal for the lozenge design to address an
oversight. In the current design, there is no way to distinguish from
an All-day and 15 minute FYI events & @time and Anytime events.
+ All-day FYI events and Anytime events look the same: dark border,
+ 15 minute FYI events and @time events look the same: dark border,
The proposal for addressing this is....
+ Use dashed lines from Tentative events, combine them with the
white-fill FYI look for @Time and Anytime events.
Based on the stamping spec discussions, Mimi started another thread
about how to determine the user's perspective when sharing.
Perspective doesn't change the underlying data but does change how
you see it. This is really about determining if I see items from
+ My own perspective: Communications from me are outbound.
Communications to me are inbound.
+ From the sharer's perspective: Communication from them are
outbound. Communications to them are inbound.
+ From a group perspective: Communications are inbound if they are
TO: the group. Communications are outbound if they are not TO: the
+ From a neutral perspective: No notion of inbound or outbound.
Priscilla posted some mock-ups for 0.2 Scooby visuals. She provided a
mock-up for how Scooby will look in 0.2 and some potential visual
directions we are exploring for later releases.
As a results of the dialog emerging about the stamping spec, Mimi
posted a proposal for simplifying the Communication status and the
Who column. This includes the full list of rules around what displays
in the Who column given a specific context. Mimi also points out that
sorting on Who doesn't make sense. We would more likely sort on a
specific attribute ie: from, to, cc, bcc, updated by, editing by etc.
Mimi sent a proposal to the list questioning whether or not we needed
traditional sort, particularly for the who column. Her point being
that there are other ways ie: sections, filtering etc that would
satisfy the basic sort use cases.
+ Jeffrey responded in favor of this but pointed out that behind the
scenes we would still do this work, it would just imply a different
+ Ashkan pointed out that sort tends to be useful for some vague
+ Dennis Lynch responded that sort is critical and outlined several
detailed use cases.
+ Mimi responded and clarified that she wasn't proposing getting rid
of sort but challenged it usefulness for some attributes like who and
date and exposed some tradeoffs we would have to make since there is
some significant implementation cost here.
Discussion continued around the stamping spec.
+ Philippe responded that he didn't see the semantic different
between receiving an item the first-time and receiving an update. The
update could be a complete re-write of the item.
+ Mimi explained that this distinction is necessary in order to
separate who the invitation was from and who updated it. When you
receive something the first time we want to know who sent it so the
FROM: and TO: values are important. When we receive an update, we
want to know who modified it so in this case, the EDITED and UPDATED
fields are important.
+ There is a secondary case where a small group are collaborating on
the item before the official "first item" is sent out to a wider
audience where the final To: and From: is specified. In this case,
the user can mark it as a draft and sent to reviewers first without
sending it to the final To: and From:. This case is probably a bit
too complex to handle in the Beta timeframe. Users can emulate the
same workflow by entering placeholder text in the From: and To:
fields until they are ready to enter the email. You would enter valid
email addresses for those who should review the invitation.
+ A "nice to have" would be the ability to right click and send an
item as a draft. Recipients can see it's status as a draft then.
Callum Macdonald pinged us since nobody had responded to his post
about calendars that track people and locations. Grant responded on
some thoughts around the implementation complexities and the reality
of addressing anything this ambitious in the 1.0 timeframe. He did
suggest however that this might be of interest to a third party
Jim Sowers posted to checkin on if we had made any changes to the
name we use for the calendar on the server since he found this
confusing when using multiple machines to share his calendar. Sheila
responded that we were going to be making some changes that would
affect this for Alpha4 and to check back if that doesn't address the
Davor sent a link for an article about RedHat's new "social
Katie posted the notes from our Tues design discussion. Grant
presented on the domain model, stamping for the benefit of the Scooby
developers and others who were interested.
Mimi posted that Gmail has something stamping-like for outbound
Priscilla posted her Chandler dogfood feedback for May.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Design