Hi, Depends who is our main focus: normal users or content gardeners?
As an user of a multi-language site you just care if the site is available in your language. After you made the initial interface language selection, you wish to have the content displayed in the same language, or fallback on a 'neutral' language (while mentioning that the 'preferred' language is not available). A normal user does not care that a certain page has x translations or that the interface is in 30 languages, except when doing the initial preference. This could be set also from User Profile. As a content gardener (content manager) I want to know what languages are missing in order to add them. But this info can be (and it is) displayed in the edit mode. ---- The 'easy' solution as you said is to make it configurable. And we kind of do this when we don't reach an agreement. IMO it's good and is bad, since the code and the testing gets split, so I hope we reach a conclusion. The argument that there are not that many languages in the wild is hard to quantify, since we are missing user statistics. --- Another place where we could display the language information in the expanded state (2.1) could be near the Tags area or in the Document Information. I prefer the select approach (2.2) because the location is highly visible and we don't want to capture the user's attention on an information he might not need at all. That's why if you really want to put them as list of links, maybe we can change the location and present them more as metadatas. Thanks, Caty On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Denis Gervalle <d...@softec.lu> wrote: > Hi Cathy, > > I would like to add a remark to your conclusion which is very centric on > the 2.2 solutions. > > The main complaints that have been said about 2.1 solution were > scalability, and the fear that too much languages could clutter the > interface, which is true at some point. However, GL mention the fact that > it is really rare to have more than five languages. I also mention that 2.2 > solution require more click to switch language. > > I would like to add that 2.1 is nearer to what we have actually, so 2.2 > could be seen as an important change for existing users. A change that > could be seen as less ergonomic. Switching between just two language with > 2.2 is really boring compare to the same task with 2.1. > > The scalability issue should not drive alone the decision. There is also > another aspect of between 2.1 and 2.2 that should be considered. With 2.2, > you do not see at a glance, what are the available translations. Two use > case here: a) You have to click once to discover that your expected > language is not available. b) while reviewing the site for completeness, > you need to click to know about available translation for each document. > > Believe me, I have work for a long time in multilingual environment, and > unless your language usage is very casual, single click switch and direct > view of available languages are far more comfortable than a menu choice. > > So, since this is still a proposal and not a vote, I think that it is still > time to extends the proposal. > Why not implementing a mix of 2.1 (for easy of use, and "back > compatibility") and 2.2 (for scalability) depending on user configuration, > with a default based on the number of configured languages ? > It does not look that hard IMO, and could have the benefit of scalability > and usability at the same time. > > I hope other will reconsider their views, because this is an important > choice, and it could make a differentiator for XWiki. > WDYT ? > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < > 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. > > > > 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 <man...@xwiki.com> 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 <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 > > > > > > -- > Denis Gervalle > SOFTEC sa - CEO > _______________________________________________ > 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
