I'm wondering if your sense of that has to do with the fact that
internally, we've always referred to the Desktop as Chandler and the
Server / Web app as Cosmo. Moving forward, I think we want to present
the whole enchilada as Chandler Desktop and Web? I'm leery of having
3 links: Chandler Desktop, Chandler Hub, Chandler Server/Cosmo...but
maybe that's clearest for now.
On Mar 29, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Brian Moseley wrote:
On 3/27/07, Mimi Yin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Won't plugging it directly into the browser take them to Chandler
Hub?
yes. my point is that a link named "[Chandler]" doesn't give
enoughinformation, imo, that it's usable both in the desktop
application and directly in the web browser.
Won't the link take them to the Chandler Server UI? In the end,
putting the link into the browser takes you to a Chandler page.
yes. i wanted to be clear that there should not be any link named
"[Hub]", because that only applies to our hosted service.
Yup, got that.
So really the best way to describe this to users is to distinguish
between URLs for yourself versus URLs for other people.
Okay, I think Priss and I need to think this one through a bit. I
imagine we won't get around to having an elegant design for this
until Post-Preview, at which point we may want to consider having it
in the end-user PIM UI.
yeah, pretty much.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
