Hi, thanks! Actually I kinda like it. There will be many menus only for people who have a lot of rights :-)
Waiting for other people's opinions! Thanks, Guillaume On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guillaume. > > I've added your idea to the proposal: > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization#H1.3:1.12B1.2 > > Too me, there is too many menus in that case. > > > 2015-10-01 14:12 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > one quick question (maybe it's dumb but it crossed my mind while looking > at > > the proposals): what about implementing both a "viewers" and a "cog" > button > > (pushing the total to up to 5 buttons when you have all possible rights)? > > > > Could this make sense? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Guillaume > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > With 7.2, the content menus have changed a lot. The pain point is that > we > > > have a too much crowded "more actions" menu. > > > > > > Some discussions have already been done on this jira issue: > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12587 > > > > > > Caty have created a design page to re-organize the menus: > > > > http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/NestedMenuReorganization > > > > > > I'm in favor of the solution 1.2. > > > > > > So: > > > > > > * -0 for solution 1.1 since the viewers are not what we use the most > > > (thanks to the extra tabs on the bottom) and it gives them too much > > > importance > > > * +1 for solution 1.2, even if we might encounter some difficulties > > saying > > > if an item is a base action or an advanced one. > > > > > > * 0 for option A (too much clicks), but on the other hand I don't have > an > > > alternative to propose. > > > * +1 for option B. The jira issue is already created ( > > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-12636) and I think nobody would be > > > opposed to this. > > > * +0 for option C. The browser already have this ability, and yes, it > > > implies the hiding of the panels (thanks to some CSS we have). > However, I > > > remember a client using this feature for a convoluted use-case: > include a > > > light wiki page in an other website via an iframe. Anyway, we could > still > > > keep the viewer but remove the link. > > > * +1 for D. I know that security through obscurity is not the best, but > > it > > > disturbs me to let an access to the source code of any wiki page, > > including > > > not-well-done applications created by users. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Guillaume > > > > > > -- > > > Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) > > > Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS > > > Committer on the XWiki.org project > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > -- > Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) > Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS > Committer on the XWiki.org project _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
