Grmpf... Re-reading myself, sorry ^_^
>There is a code wich says that the name is stronguer writtenend than the surname. Yet we have to check the relevance of >this code worldwide before using it. Here code = interface signs that make sens for people >I would like to check the relevance ot this, is the code available somewhere ? (I'm sorry I'm not a dev so I'm a bit lost in using >svn) Here code = in programming language 2009/11/11 Thibaut DEVERAUX <[email protected]> > Hi, > > > >We need some kind of consistency - we can't just remove some indications > and > >leave others. The big problem is that the importance of the fields can be > >subjective from one person to another. > > A agree to this. Yet there is some possible questionnements about an other > constraint. > --- Usability design is always soooo made of crossed constraints. I'm sorry > to come and make questionnements after a five minuts look on something you > have balanced hours. Experience show that cross creation with users and > other designers is always enhancing designs. Yet it stays a long process of > agregating partial points in the main-designer global vision so if it is > something you have already seen and balanced don't loose time, just tell > when it is in conflict with another point. ;-) --- > > So, what is freigntening me is that the number of elements and the > altenances field-name/field-content may make it diffcult to scan the list. > Since users generally start looking for informations in scan mode it can be > a limitation. > > > By removing the "first name" and "last name" fieds (*since this information > is already at the top*) we can limit this. > Yet the question wich appear next is how to differentiate the name and the > surname ?" > > Just imagine someone named : > "Gerolino Cadroli Madoree Plalerma" > > Having the name in bold/little stronguer can be a point : > "Geronimo Cdroli MANDOREE PALERMA" > (in bold or best in capitals with the accents) > > There is a code wich says that the name is stronguer writtenend than the > surname. Yet we have to check the relevance of this code worldwide before > using it. > > > I would like to check the relevance ot this, is the code available > somewhere ? (I'm sorry I'm not a dev so I'm a bit lost in using svn) > > > About my comments about the "contact" part just forget it for the moment. > There is a separation wich makes it ok with a 3 points lists. (we could do > other things wich would create other constraints so I think the value is too > poor) > > > Thanks > > Thibaut > > 2009/11/5 Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> > > > >> > Can I make a sugestion to symplify the fields ? >> > Just removing semantic indications that are not mandatory >> > >> >> We need some kind of consistency - we can't just remove some indications >> and >> leave others. The big problem is that the importance of the fields can be >> subjective from one person to another. >> >> >> > -- John Martins -- >> > (remove name from list since it is already at the top ?) >> > >> >> It's at the top because there is a way to enter that information in the >> profile's form. I wanted to keep the position of the fields the same in >> view >> mode and edit mode. So if we make some fields disappear in one view, this >> can lead to some confusion. >> >> >> > (maybe put the username a little stronger than usersurname to make sur >> it >> > differentiate for foreign names ?) >> > >> >> I don't think we need to more differentiate some fields from the others. >> They are already in categories. The field's name are descriptive enough >> not >> to produce confusions. >> >> Description : >> > (first, as a personalized, more "eye contact" part ?) >> > Hello, I'm an IT engineer ! >> > I'm found of XWiki ! >> > >> > Departement : Technology >> > >> > Office : XWiki Nantes (new office ^_^) >> > >> > Contact : >> > [email protected] >> > + 33 (0)6 32 49 34 23 >> > >> > Site : >> > http://www.xwiki.com >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > In modify mode, maybe put the aditional semantic needed in grey in the >> > field >> > ? >> > >> >> I'm not sure I understand what are "aditional semantic" . You mean the >> field's name? >> >> >> > > >> > >> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/UserTabsProposal >> > > Proposal 2 >> > >> > I prefer to keep the photo near the name. More coherent in semantic. (so >> > people ++ make link with name and face) >> > I know that it may be not evident with the list. Because of blank space >> ? >> > Tabs Vs List : Tabs is theorically more structuring and immediatly seen, >> > yet, yes, I like the list more. It lightweight the structure. >> > >> > >> The UserTabs are still work in progress. Thank you. >> >> >> > >>> Does he have the ability to control the resize and the centering? >> > >> > >Not for a first version I agree (unless we use a library that does >> > >it). However for the future it's a UX thing. >> > >> > I agree to say it is an UX thing because users may hate to have a bad >> > cropping of them photo. >> > >> > I think it become good UX only when transparent in most of cases >> (default >> > crop proposal being ok on most standard photos + just upload - show the >> > photo (can re-crop if needed) - validate). >> >> >> Thank you Thibaut for all your feedback :) >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
