[Design] [cosmo] [proposal] Detail View

[Ted Leung]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On May 7, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:

> mde has stated that, as is, the dev time is very low and will  
> result in something that ( according to all the feedback we've seen  
> so far ) a better UI. So we're talking about perceived risk in two  
> plans.
>
> Why is there an assumption that copying the chandler detail and  
> implementing "as is" is low risk. We've already said that there are  
> risks in that design and solving those issues is harder following a  
> UI based exactly on chandler desktop. So both designs have risks  
> for development, and one design makes usability suffer greatly on  
> low resolution.
>
> I'd also like to note that mde's test where the non-collapsing  
> detail view barely fit on 1280x1024 is when the browser is at  
> default size, the browser is not the desktop client and is usually  
> resized in some way and we are currently fixing the calendar UI for  
> different window sizes within a certain range.
>
> With more room to work in the detail view we have a small reduction  
> in risk. Can anyone please elaborate on the design risk in a new UI  
> that fits the same components and semantics as the existing  
> chandler UI in a manor better fitting a webui. I'm racking my brain  
> trying to figure out what all the issues are and I honestly can't  
> think of more than a few minor problems.

Actually the semantics are not the same, which is what Jeffrey was  
trying to point out.   The preview release consists of a number of  
"experiments".  First, (and foremost in my mind) is the experiment  
around the ideas that are the essence of Chandler whether delivered  
via desktop or web software.  That includes triage based management  
of information (dashboard),  ability to reshape information as you  
understand its purpose (stamping), sharing of items, and so forth.    
Getting validation and feedback on these ideas is the high order bit  
of preview, at least for me.   The new design weakens the benefits of  
stamping in order to cater to small screens.   I'm really surprised  
by how vociferously people want to clip everything for the sake of  
people on small screens.

> Yes, this is only the first iteration of the UI and there will be  
> more, but I don't think myself or the developers are seeing anyones  
> reasoning for not going for this better UI now and I think we would  
> all appreciate a little bit of elaboration from PPD. We've tried  
> very hard to voice our concerns in the small window we have before  
> EOD and would like to know that our time hasn't been wasted.
>
> I'd also like to say that one UI has to room for "iteration" and  
> the other is essentially throw away code after 0.7 which I think is  
> what is making some of us a little more adamant about this right now.

What if the ultimate solution for this turns out to be a detail view  
horizontally across the bottom, as has been proposed?  Then I'd say  
that we're back to square one again. 
   
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFGP8j2YCjW/J06/U8RAqluAJ91tJ4LtqKYBiuuuf5QckHOn36gdwCeP8uy
YWieVPS5ZVisuti1ew3dSas=
=STm7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----