> On 29 May 2018, at 18:00, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Caty,
>>
>>> On 29 May 2018, at 17:23, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> Just to make sure we are on the same page since there were some
>> ambiguities
>>> on the proposal, I've put some screenshot on how it will look like:
>>> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/
>> IdeaVisibleSave#HProposal10.x
>>
>> Could you give some context to explain why we need a VOTE and what you’re
>> asking to VOTE about?
>>
>> AFAIK there’s no need to VOTE on having Visible Save button since:
>> * We already discussed and decided to implement visible save
>> * It was already put twice in the roadmap and is currently in the 10.5
>> roadmap (which is already started), and nobody complained
>>
>> So if your email is about bringing some variations to what was decided,
>> it’s fine but why does it need a VOTE? A simple proposal would have been
>> enough IMO.
>>
>>> This proposal extracts the save controls and puts them on a fixed bottom
>>> bar.
>>
>> Does it mean that the vertical space for the editor is constrained and can
>> never be larger than the viewport minus the vertical space for the save bar?
>>
>> Also on the http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/
>> IdeaVisibleSave/after10.png screenshot the bar takes the full width but
>> on the followings screenshots the bar doesn’t. What is proposed precisely?
>>
>
> So if the window has space, the buttons should be placed normally (
> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/IdeaVisibleSave/after10Full.png).
> The save buttons are placed in a fixed bottom bar, only if they get out of
> the view port (
> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/IdeaVisibleSave/after10.png).
I still don’t understand this. The only difference I see between mode images is
the width of the save bar.
My preference goes to not full width for the save bar, i.e. width of the editor
only.
> Inline mode is more problematic because it has panels (looks a bit strange
> to be full width, see
> http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/IdeaVisibleSave/after10Inline2.png
> ). Ideally the buttons should be kept in the container they refer to, so in
> xwiki content.
Yes I agree. Why is this a problem? Why not have the same width for the visible
bar than the container?
> I made screenshots with how it would look on both modes, but
> depends on what we can actually implement. Don't have an ideal answer for
> inline mode.
Why is
http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/IdeaVisibleSave/after10Inline.png
a problem?
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
>
>
>>
>> Could you explain what’s different between "Proposal for 9.x" and
>> "Proposal for 10.x" on http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/
>> IdeaVisibleSave#HProposal10.x
>>
>> I’ve checked quickly and I don’t see any difference visually.
>>
>>> There are some problems with the inline mode and with the responsive
>>> versions.
>>> With the inline version we could decide to keep the current
>>> behavior and have the fixed bar only in Wiki and WYSIWYG modes. I guess
>> we
>>> should do some implementation tests and see what's possible.
>>
>> What problems?
>>
>> At this stage I can’t VOTE since I don’t know what’s the question and it
>> seems to be missing some details (see my questions above).
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>> PS: It’s sad that we are so late on the design of visible save since we’ve
>> had months to plan this. It was already put in a roadmap at least 6 months
>> ago and then not finished and then put again in the roadmap several months
>> ago. We could have had plenty of time to discuss/tune this. Now this means
>> we are at risk of not finishing this for 10.5. Let’s hope we can catch up.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Caty
