[Sum] Re: [Design] Fwd: [Bug 11244] Keep order of collections in sync between Hub and Desktop

[Mimi Yin]

I agree, I don't think anyone would want random ordering on Hub to  
scramble manually ordered collections on the Desktop. So now the  
question is, how to best address this issue? Could the Desktop  
ordering win over Hub? More simply put, whichever application gets to  
implementing explicit re-ordering should win.

What do we do with collections that appear on Hub, but don't appear  
in the Desktop?

Perhaps something here has got to give. It seems we want 3 things.
1. Maintain the flexibility to pick and choose which collections  
sync / don't sync between Desktop and Hub?
2. Keep the order of collections in sync between Hub and Desktop
3. Allow for explicit re-ordering in the sidebar (at a minimum in the  
Desktop)

Do we need all 3 to work? Are there simplifying assumptions we can  
start with and then iterate from there? ie.
+ User has only 1 sharing account
+ User has data on 1 machine
+ Users wants same collections to appear in both Hub and Desktop

I think 3 is a given. It's something people want regardless of  
whether or not they share. I can buy that for our current set of  
users 1 is more important than 2. But I would argue that for new  
users down the road, not addressing 2 is confusing, especially  
because the Hub UI now supports a list of collections that can be  
overlayed. (The inconsistency in collection ordering between Hub and  
Desktop was less egregious when the Hub UI only had a pulldown for  
navigating between collections.)

Thoughts?

Mimi

On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Andre Mueninghoff wrote:

>> From the feedback, it sounds to me like merely having the Desktop and
> Hub collection order be in sync in advance of providing a tool to  
> users
> on either end or both to change the order is occurring as net-negative
> for more people than net-positive. The approach behind my  
> suggestion was
> to advance the functionality in small increments. Seems like though  
> that
> this may not be the best next small step in this area.
>
> Andre
>
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:28:29 -0800, "Philippe Bossut"
> <pbossut at osafoundation.org> said:
>> Mimi Yin wrote:
>>> Phiippe said:
>>>> Hmm... What would that order be in the use case I presented? Again,
>>>> my Hub and Desktop do not have the same set of collections.
>>>
>>> I wrote up an ordering proposal
>>> here: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2007- 
>>> November/007800.html
>>
>> OK so, in my case and according to your proposal, I would get  
>> (from my
>> Hub):
>> - Perso
>> - 0.7.x Schedule
>> - Work
>> - RC Test
>> - Cosmo
>>
>> and a list of local collections I guess... Not sure where the  
>> subscribed
>> collections will fall in that proposal. Where will they fit? I
>> subscribed to them using tickets and they are all on different  
>> accounts.
>>
>> Needless to say, this is not a very useful ordering. Not worse but as
>> useless as the one I have on my Desktop machine. The fact that it is
>> consistently useless is of little solace I'm afraid... I mean,  
>> it's not
>> addressing any of the problems I have with collection ordering.
>>
>> At the very least, if we go with this "sync collection order  
>> between Hub
>> and Desktop" idea, we need to give to the user a way to reorder
>> collections on the Hub. Something in the account browser would  
>> work for
>> me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - Philippe
>>
>>
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design