[Design] Manage Share/Collection Sharing dialog

[Ted Leung]

On Jun 28, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Priscilla Chung wrote:

> Please see my notes inline:
> On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
>>
>> I may be an edge case here, but I currently have calendars from 3  
>> different servers in my Chandler, so account information is useful  
>> to me in recalling what came from where.
>
> True, but I'm still questioning do you usually recognize your  
> collection by the 'collection name' or by what server it comes from?

Oh, no disagreement that the primary way of recognizing a collection  
is by name.

>
> In regards to your comment, '3 different servers in my Chandler', I  
> agree there should some sort of 'supplementary' information, just  
> not what's currently there which is the 'Description'. The  
> 'Description' name can be changed in the 'Accounts' dialog so you  
> can pretty much label it anything you want it to be. (See attached  
> screenshot w/ no photoshop tricks, the 'Sharing account' was  
> renamed in Chandler. Question: Which collection is this office  
> calendar from? iCal or Chandler, can you tell? And how?)

Based on the picture, I can't tell.

> <guessSharingAcct.png>
>
> Again to my last point:
> + Another way to tell where a collection is shared might be to  
> describe the server that hosts the collection. ie. The server name  
> and path that is not editable by the user in 'Accounts'. iCal  
> server at Mac.com or Cosmo server at Cosmo-demo.osafoundation.org.  
> This information is useful, however once again, displaying this  
> type of information may be more useful for the advanced users; a  
> user who would understand the difference of collections being  
> hosted on different severs.
>
> Yes, we should provide the user with information to which 'server'  
> the collection is stored on. Though to get to this point, Mimi and  
> I are going to sit down and work out an 'ideal' solution–which  
> hopefully will be the least amount of work for releasing Chandler's  
> beta.
>
> Having said that of course, I  welcome suggestions for a better  
> solution then what is there currently.  Or if your opinion is that  
> everything 'looks fine by me', that's fair too.

As long as that information is available somewhere -- even under an  
"advanced" tab, I would be fine.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20060628/35c67950/attachment.htm