On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
> > > > On 29 May 2018, at 18:00, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <vali...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Caty, > >> > >>> On 29 May 2018, at 17:23, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <vali...@gmail.com > > > >> 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? > Maybe it's not a problem. We will see how we can implement it. Hope we won't use JS to calculate the width. > > 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 > >
