On 23 Sep 2014 at 16:44:39, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) (vali...@gmail.com(mailto:vali...@gmail.com)) wrote:
> Hi, > > These preferences were so hard to calculate since people didn't used clean > +/-0/1 voted or voted positively on multiple entries, so if I misunderstood > your vote please let me know. Sorry Caty but not VOTE was started (which is why I didn’t vote). Personally I don’t like 2.2.x too much as I mentioned in the jira issue http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-10745 “ I don't like 2.2.1 too much on my side because it adds an extra line in the UI and thus makes it more cluttered and gives less room from the content " But let’s say if there was a vote I’d vote +0 FTM since I don’t have the time right now to review all proposals or make new proposals. At least I hope it appears only when the wiki is multilingual :) Thanks -Vincent > Reminder: Proposal available at > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguageSeparation > > __Short version__ > > So the majority of the participants liked version 2.2 with some discussion > whether to choose variant 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. > > So the current votes are: > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 Manu) > (+1 Caty) > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+4) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +4 > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+2) } = +1 > > If you want to change your vote or cast another vote, please reply to this > message. Until then, the winning solution is 2.2.1 > > > > __Long version__ > > Some conclusions: > > * 2.1: (-0 Jean) (-1 Sergiu) > ** 2.1.1: (+0 Jean) (+1 Denis) (+0 Silvia) (+0 Manu) > ** 2.1.2: (+1 GL) (+0 Denis) > > * 2.2: (+1 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 Manu) > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+1 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > ** 2.2.3: (+0 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) (+0 Manu) > > * 2.3: (-0 Jean) (+/-0 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) > > * 2.4: (+0 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (-0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) (+0 Andreea) > > So this means: > > * 2.1: { '1': (-1) (+0) } { '0': (-1) (+0) } = -1 > ** 2.1.1: { '1': (-0) (+1) } { '0': (-0) (+3) } = +1 > ** 2.1.2: { '1': (-0) (+1) } { '0': (-0) (+1) } = +1 > > * 2.2: { '1': (-0) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+0) } = +2 > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+3) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +3 > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+3) } { '0': (-0) (+1) } = +2 > ** 2.2.3: { '1': (-0) (+0) } { '0': (-0) (+3) } = 0 > > * 2.3: { '1': (-0) (+0) } { '0': (-2) (+2) } = 0 > > * 2.4: { '1': (-1) (+0) } { '0': (-1) (+3) } = -1 > > So the majority of the participants liked version 2.2 with some discussion > whether to choose variant 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. The votes were: > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 Manu) > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+1 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > Adjustments: > > Since Segiu voted -1 on 2.2.2 we couldn't pick this version until the > committer changes his vote, given the arguments. > > Given Sergiu's arguments I want to change my vote for 2.2.2 from +1 -> +0 > and give variant 2.2.1 a +1 vote. > My rationale behind this change is that: > * initially I preferred using links to display the language in order to be > consistent with edit mode (language selection) > * because of space constraints I believe is better to use a menu to display > them > * since it's a menu, I agree it should have the standard menu look > * from an implementation point of view is easier to use the Bootstrap's > menu component than to write a custom one for our case > > So the current votes are: > ** 2.2.1: (-0 Jean) (+1 Sergiu) (+0 GL) (+1 Silvia) (+0 Andreea) (+1 Manu) > (+1 Caty) > ** 2.2.2: (+1 Jean) (+0 Sousa) (+1 GD) (+0 Caty) (-1 Sergiu) > > ** 2.2.1: { '1': (-0) (+4) } { '0': (-1) (+2) } = +4 > ** 2.2.2: { '1': (-1) (+2) } { '0': (-0) (+2) } = +1 > > If you want to change your vote or cast another vote, please reply to this > message. Until then, the winning solution is 2.2.1 > > Thanks, > Caty > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Manuel Smeria wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'm +1 for this proposal. > > > > I like 2.1.1, 2.2.1 & 2.2.3, but if I were to pick one I'd go with 2.2.1. > > > > Thanks, > > Manuel > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > > gdelhum...@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > > > 2014-08-21 11:00 GMT+02:00 vinc...@massol.net : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 Aug 2014 at 10:57:36, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau ( > > > > gdelhum...@xwiki.com(mailto:gdelhum...@xwiki.com)) wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > 2014-08-21 9:58 GMT+02:00 Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) : > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > First of all we need to decide how prominent we want this > > > > functionality to > > > > > > be. > > > > > > I would make it more transparent, since theoretically you should > > > change > > > > > > your language preference just once (in the Administration, and per > > > > user) > > > > > > and all the pages should be displayed according to that preference. > > > > This is > > > > > > not something that need to be highly visible and that you would > > > change > > > > > > every day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not true on a public wiki (like Wikipedia). > > > > > > > > That’s a good point, we need to agree which skin we’re discussing. > > AFAIK > > > > we’re discussing Flamingo which is NOT a public web site skin. When we > > > do a > > > > public web site skin we would need to take this into consideration > > > indeed. > > > > > > > > > > To me Flamingo can be used for a public wiki (without the app bar), which > > > has not the same meaning as "public website" which is not necessary a > > > "wiki" (see: > > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Leiothrix+Skin ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > IMO it's more important to be better displayed when you want to > > > > > > create a new translation, than when you read one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the flag to represent languages you can read this comment > > > > with > > > > > > additional information about why we wouldn't do it like that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9512?focusedCommentId=77895&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-77895 > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Cathy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.1.1 is the one I prefer, 2.1.2 is also good but the separation > > > > between > > > > > > > language should be more clear, and it is less easy to see the > > > active > > > > > > one. I > > > > > > > have no fear about the scaling issue, even heavily multilingual > > > site > > > > like > > > > > > > those of the European Commission use such enumeration without > > > issue. > > > > And > > > > > > as > > > > > > > Guillaume said, it is really rare to have more than a few > > languages > > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > Other proposal implies multiple click/touch for the same purpose, > > > > which > > > > > > is > > > > > > > bad IMO for content. It is also important to only display > > > effectively > > > > > > > available languages, but with an enum, it could be also good to > > > have > > > > the > > > > > > > option to also display unavailable one greyed, so language keep > > > their > > > > > > > location on screen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the UI language, 1.1 is fine, but maybe a bit large. > > > Having > > > > > > only > > > > > > > initial in the bar would be better IMO. Having also a more fancy > > > > > > solution, > > > > > > > like what I have done with bluebird (see http://softec.lu), > > could > > > be > > > > > > nice > > > > > > > to have as well... or a easy way to customize it that way with an > > > > > > > extension. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < > > > > > > > vali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-10745 (Improve the > > > > display > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > available languages in Flamingo) which is related to > > > > > > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-6402 (Separate Interface > > > > language > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > page language settings) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While in Flamingo we could just make the language links look > > > > better, > > > > > > > > without changing the functionality, for the future, the > > > separation > > > > is > > > > > > > > something we might want to tackle, that's why I've created this > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > page > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/InterfaceAndContentLanguageSeparation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested in what you think about the variants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
