[Design] [cosmo] [proposal] Detail View

[Mikeal Rogers]

> 2. Getting the release out is most important. The cosmo schedule  
> has slipped -- the 0.7 timeframe is very tight. Risking the  
> schedule further  is not a good thing. A new design introduces  
> schedule risk, even if the implementation is the same, as a new  
> design will likely require further discussion and decision making.

The new design looks like it's all the same content and usage as the  
chandler desktop design but includes collapsable sections rather than  
staticly sized ones.

I think this gets us out of any further discussion beyond just rubber  
stamping this design. We still look back to the chandler desktop  
design for what all the content and fields "mean", just the layout is  
changed slightly.

All the workflows should be the same and the detail behind what  
fields mean what are all the same as in chandler desktop so we  
totally get out of having a dozen new threads about the semantics  
behind each piece.

Could someone expand on what they think the addition design work is  
beyond what's already been done that might add schedule risk?

It's also worth noting, and mde can expand upon this if he agrees,  
that the possibilities for problems with different window sizes is  
much higher in a design that follows chandler desktop exactly may be  
more of a schedule risk than the perceived design work. Just a thought.

-Mikeal


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20070507/c6b4c483/PGP.pgp