I appreciate your comments. I was reaching for a distinction between
easily and commonly edited options and those that you wouldn't edit
unless you were making a fundamental shift in the underlying
functionality of the component. But now I see it as a failed experiment.
That said, I'm wondering if perhaps the our API documentation should
be treated as reference documentation: a comprehensive view of the
features offered by a component. Our tutorials, on the other hand,
would be the place where users are guided through standard and
simple ways of using a component.
I think that this is right on the money. I'll switch it back.
But in case you're still curious, my rational was the options that you
would need to edit to modify the UI should be in the common category.
Both totalProgressBar and focusWithEvent fall into this camp. While,
as we defined them currently, fileQueueView and decorators are pretty
much functional. But this is really a false separation, especially
since we're talking about pushing the configuration options for
FileQueueView into the set up for Uploader, just as they are for
totalProgressBar. So that was the distinction -- again, not a great one.
Thanks for the feedback.
- Eli
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Colin Clark wrote:
Eli,
I'm confused by an apparent inconsistency in the way you've chosen
to distinguish between "general" and "advanced" options. You've put
two of the subcomponent configuration options, fileQueueView and
decorators, in the Advanced section. But then you have other similar
options, totalProgressBar and focusWithEvent, which you've left in
the general section. Any particular reason?
In general, a user won't need to worry about any subcomponent-
related configuration options unless they do one of two things:
1. Change the default template and want to rebind their selectors
2. Create their own alternative implementations of a subcomponent
If you do think there's a good motivation for distinguishing between
general and advanced options, we should have a clear criteria for
each category, and do this consistently across our documentation.
Thoughts?
Colin
On 23-Apr-09, at 9:07 PM, Eli Cochran wrote:
I've added some missing options to the Uploader API document and
improved the section on running locally.
One of the things that I did was pull two of the options into a
separate section called advanced options. But I'm not sure about
it. I would love someone to give it a review.
http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Uploader+API
Thanks,
Eli
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Eli Cochran
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
---
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
http://fluidproject.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Eli Cochran
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
