The consensus view looks good to me. I believe preserving the current model as Joe describes it is a smart approach.
An undo action and restrained use of confirmation dialogs are minimal and should not significantly impede experienced operators. More often than not, I'd bet a user would expect similar functionality. As is evident by the views expressed around read-only/locking, it will be very difficult to please a majority of users with different user modes and UI states. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:29 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > To summarize where we're at ... > > Proposed approaches (summary): > > - Establish a default read-only view whereby an operator can enable > edit mode. Use confirmation dialogs for deletes. > > - Keep the current model but add support for ‘undo’. > > - Let the user choose whether to lock their view or not as user preference. > > - For delete add more protections to make accidents less likely and > for movement provide an explicit ‘move action’. > > The idea of locking seems to have some strong views on both sides and > both sides have even been argued by the same people (i now count > myself among that group). > > It looks like a consensus view there though is: > > - Try to make panning the view of the flow and moving components on > the flow two specific/discrete actions to avoid accidental movement. > > - Add support for undo > > - Provide sufficient dialog/protection for delete cases. > > This preserves the model whereby we generally trust that the user will > do the right thing and we’ll do more to help them and that when they > don’t they will learn and have help to promptly restore a good state. > How do folks feel about that? > > Thanks > Joe > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Alex Moundalexis <al...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > Counterpoint, accidents happen; I prefer to enable users to learn from > > mistakes and exercise more care next time. You can't remove every mildly > > sharp edge without impacting experienced operators; resist the urge at a > few > > comments to dumb down the tool. > > > > If some protection is added to the UI, suggest an option for "expert > mode" > > that retains original functionality... that way experienced operators > aren't > > affected. > > > > Alex Moundalexis > > Senior Solutions Architect > > Cloudera Partner Engineering > > > > Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity. > > > > On Aug 7, 2015 10:31 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Team, > >> > >> We've been hearing from users of nifi that it is too easy to > >> accidentally move something on the flow or delete large portions of > >> the flow. This is the case when panning the screen for example and > >> accidentally having a processor selected instead. > >> > >> What is worth consideration then is the notion of making the flow > >> 'read-only' by default. In this case the user would need to > >> explicitly 'enable edit mode'. We would then also support a > >> confirmation dialog or similar construct whenever deleting components > >> on the flow. > >> > >> Anyone have a strong objection to this concept? If so, do you have an > >> alternative in mind that would help avoid accidental movement? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Joe > -- Rob
