On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <ser...@xwiki.com> wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 02:48 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 2013, at 6:54 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <ser...@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > >> On 01/20/2013 11:31 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >>> > >>> On Jan 20, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <ser...@xwiki.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi devs, > >>>> > >>>> For content pages, the bottom tabs (comments, attachments, history, > >>>> information) are very useful features. But does it make sense to keep > >>>> those active for very technical pages? > >>>> > >>>> For example, when viewing details about a tag, (Main/Tags?do=viewTag), > >>>> why should people be allowed to comment? They might wrongly think that > >>>> they're commenting on a tag, but that's just one complex page that > >>>> handles almost everything about tags, so a comment like "this tag has > a > >>>> typo" doesn't help at all. > >>>> > >>>> Other pages should have no bottom tabs as well: user directory, blog > >>>> category management, the whole scheduler space, share by email... > >>>> > >>>> While the homepage is a technical page (by default), it does make > sense > >>>> to leave the comments active, since it's the entry point for every > user > >>>> (although I think that the messaging system is a better way to send > >>>> global messages). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> IMO, the advantage is that we're hiding actions that are rarely > useful, > >>>> but could be misused. The disadvantage is that we're breaking the > >>>> universality of the UI. > >>>> > >>>> I'm +1 for hiding, fewer mis-usable features is always better. > >>> > >>> What if admins want to leave comments on a tech page modified by > another admin to ask some question for example? > >> > >> Sending a message to another admin should be done by... sending a > >> message, not by commenting. A direct message will reach a user faster > >> than hoping that the target user will stumble upon the page and read the > >> comment. > > > > If you're saying that comments are useless then we should remove > comments… :) > > > >>> Said differently, shouldn't bottom tabs (comments, attachments, etc) > be visible to admins for example? This could be achieved by only giving > view rights to non admins by default on tech pages. > >> > >> Tech pages aren't supposed to be viewed only by admins. They're useful > >> pages for every user, so they should be visible (view tag cloud, view > >> documents tagged with a specific tag, view the list of users, browse > >> blog categories...). And not having view right doesn't mean that the > >> bottom tabs will be hidden. Just the "add comment", "add attachment" > >> actions will be unavailable. > > > > ok my bad, I meant edit/comment rights, not view rights. > > > >> And even if adding is disabled, but why should this information be > >> visible to any user at all? Forbidding edit still means that a user > >> wanting to see which pages are tagged with "needsreview" will see a "Hey > >> John, could we have an undo to tag renaming?" comment. What would you > >> think if you saw that? > > > > Again if your point is that comments are useless then we should remove > comments. I think there's a place for comments but it seems your discussion > is actually asking us to define more precisely what is the use case/need > for comments. > > > > Also I think there's a difference between a Tag Dashboard page which is > a technical page but for end users and a technical page not for end users > (i.e. hidden page). Both will need different solutions I think. So this > proposal should address both needs. > > > >>> Another use case: imagine I'm an admin and I want to modify a tech > page and I'd like to add an attachment to that page… IMO bottom tabs are > still useful for admins on tech pages. > >> > >> This isn't about disabling attachments and comments. The bottom tabs are > >> almost an _invitation_ to do stuff. Without them, it is still possible > >> to go to the attachments page by clicking on the "Attachments (0)" link > >> below the title. De-contextualizing these actions will reduce the risk > >> of associating a comment/attachment with a particular view of the > >> scripted page. > > > > If the bottom tabs are removed then those links will also need to be > removed obviously since otherwise a user can click on them... > > > >>> IMO the issue is different. If a tech is not supposed to be modified > by the user then users should have only view rights on the page and NOT > edit rights. This will solve this issue. > >> > >> It's not just about changing, but also about what's visible on the > >> screen, and the usefulness of such information vs. the number of WTFs > >> generated. > > > > I don't see any WTF. For me any page that is a end user visible page can > have comments without any WTF. For example on the tag dashboard page, > someone may comment and say "how do I get the tag dashboard to display > xxx?" or anything else in just the same way it's done on any other page. > > > > In addition I'm actually finding the removal of the bottom tab a huge > WTF. As a user I know what a page is, and if I see those tabs are not > present on some pages, I'll think "what???? WTF? Why is there not tabs > there…. > > > >> Forget about admins, they will still be able to add comments > >> and attachments. Think about simple users searching for stuff and seeing > >> a comment completely unrelated to what they're searching for. > >> > >> I forgot to say that this has already been done in a few places, and > >> nobody complained about the missing things: > >> > >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Tags > >> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Search > >> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Invitation/ > > > > It's not because it's been done that it's an accepted strategy/decision. > I've seen those and I've always been uneasy about them and they've been > done without any strategy whatsoever… > > > > All I'm saying is that we need this discussion because we need to know > 1) if we want to remove bottom tabs 2) and if so, on which pages. > > > > ATM it's not clear for me at all. > > > > No, I'm not saying that comments are useless in general, I'm saying that > there are certain pages where they shouldn't be displayed. And I thought > I've been clear enough, but apparently not. Let me try again. > > There are content documents, and there are actions. Some actions are > implemented in VM templates, some straight in servlets or Struts > actions, some in scripted documents. There are no comments on the > Registration page, even though its code comes from a document. We can > find a valid use case for comments on the registration page (for > example, a user could try to warn others that "Hey, the user name is > case sensitive, make sure you choose one accordingly since you'll have > to respect the case when logging in"), but that doesn't mean that we > should enable comments on the registration page. This an an _action_. > People go to the registration page to _do_ something (create a new > account), they don't go there to _read_ the registration form in case > there's something interesting there. > > There are many examples of actions where we don't have comments and > attachments and the other tabs, and nobody ever asked for them (renaming > a document, logging in, editing the page rights, the administration > pages, to name just a few). Speaking of administration pages, they are > all stored as documents in the wiki. But we don't display their comments > and attachments in the administration interface. It is possible to > manage their attachments, though, so it's not like they're completely > disabled for those pages. And I'm not proposing to disable them. They > are valid and have their purpose, but they shouldn't be displayed to > users that just want to _do_ stuff, using the action document as it is > supposed to be used, as a way to perform actions. They would be > cluttering the UI needlessly, and clutter isn't good. A good UI should > be clear and simple. Removing as much distractions as possible is good > way towards simplicity, and thus usability. > > Code should be optimized so that the performance is better for the the > most used branches. Similarly, the UI should be optimized for the most > common use cases. How many users really have to add comments on an > action document? How often do administrator really leave important > messages to other administrators on wiki documents? Very rarely. Does it > make sense for this odd use case to keep the UI cluttered? I doubt that > users will be baffled more by the fact that comments are missing on some > actions than by the fact that you can actually have comments on actions. > While you and I know that "everything is a document" in XWiki, normal > users just view actions as actions. Registering is an action, logging in > is an action, searching for documents is an action, browsing documents > by tags is an action. The fact that logging in is done through several > VM templates, Struts actions and internal XWiki components, while > browsing tags is done through a wiki document, has no significance to > the simple user. > > For some actions/documents it is clear when the main purpose is for > users to _do_ something or to _read_ something. Sure, there's some > reading involved in every action, and there's some doing involved in > every content read. For some actions it would be debatable in which > category they fit better. It would be hard to come up with a clear and > precise rule. I can't come up with one. Can you? > > That's why I'm proposing to just accept that there are documents > intended to be used mostly as action pages, and in that case it is OK to > hide the bottom tabs. That's all I'm asking. Do you agree or not with > this basic choice? > So I agree with the rule that "action" pages don't need comments. Also as an addition to the rule we can also make a difference between "static & dynamic" pages and "action" pages fall into the static category, because their content is usually the same and the normal users will not change it. Thanks, Caty > > As for the actual decision of which documents fall into this category, I > think that it's OK to trust the opinion of the committers. We don't need > to decide now, we can improve things as we go along. > > (I agree that the title of the proposal could have been better, since > "technical pages" isn't a clear enough term) > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
