[yast-devel] Services UI strikes back
Last week we implemented a prototype of a reusable component to manage services in YaST modules and applied it to yast-dns-server. So I updated the infamous "YaST service management" document[1] to show the two alternatives of usage of the new component. Feedback (from UI expert or anybody else) is appreciated so we can decide which option (labeled "A" and "B") in the document is better in general. The first page of the document is unchanged, so you can skip it if you already know the problem. Cheers. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQO-bdqagSOUssGqJsf3eEeMDh2w40BujdOFP9-t... -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:27:35 +0200 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@suse.de> wrote:
Last week we implemented a prototype of a reusable component to manage services in YaST modules and applied it to yast-dns-server.
So I updated the infamous "YaST service management" document[1] to show the two alternatives of usage of the new component. Feedback (from UI expert or anybody else) is appreciated so we can decide which option (labeled "A" and "B") in the document is better in general.
The first page of the document is unchanged, so you can skip it if you already know the problem.
Cheers.
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQO-bdqagSOUssGqJsf3eEeMDh2w40BujdOFP9-t...
Hi, for me option A looks better, we just need better wording. Maybe "State" and "Service" instead of start-up? Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 04/28/2015 12:37 PM, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:27:35 +0200 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@suse.de> wrote:
Last week we implemented a prototype of a reusable component to manage services in YaST modules and applied it to yast-dns-server.
So I updated the infamous "YaST service management" document[1] to show the two alternatives of usage of the new component. Feedback (from UI expert or anybody else) is appreciated so we can decide which option (labeled "A" and "B") in the document is better in general.
The first page of the document is unchanged, so you can skip it if you already know the problem.
Cheers.
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQO-bdqagSOUssGqJsf3eEeMDh2w40BujdOFP9-t...
Hi, for me option A looks better, we just need better wording. Maybe "State" and "Service" instead of start-up?
Thanks for input. Just please keep Ken on CC. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 28.4.2015 12:55, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
The first page of the document is unchanged, so you can skip it if you already know the problem.
Cheers.
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQO-bdqagSOUssGqJsf3eEeMDh2w40BujdOFP9-t...
Hi, for me option A looks better, we just need better wording. Maybe "State" and "Service" instead of start-up?
From my POV, the current state of a service and start-up are related, so I'd expect them on the same screen. On the other hand, both options A and B seem to be too complicated for the first (and even second) sight.
Additionally, option B have them one one screen, but they are separated by LDAP and Firewall settings. Reconsidering these screens ~ maybe LDAP and Firewall do not belong there at all. They aren't actually related to service (status) at all. Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader SLE Department, SUSE Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 04/28/2015 02:39 PM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 28.4.2015 12:55, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
The first page of the document is unchanged, so you can skip it if you already know the problem.
Cheers.
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQO-bdqagSOUssGqJsf3eEeMDh2w40BujdOFP9-t...
Hi, for me option A looks better, we just need better wording. Maybe "State" and "Service" instead of start-up?
From my POV, the current state of a service and start-up are related, so I'd expect them on the same screen. On the other hand, both options A and B seem to be too complicated for the first (and even second) sight.
Yes, that's a known issue. But after discussing the UI for more than three hours in several meetings and also in a quite long mail thread, we were not able to find a UI being both usable (i.e. easy) and clear (i.e. with no room for surprises). Looks like we have to choose one. So the goal if this proposal is to ensure that nobody gets an unexpected state after saving, even at expenses of usability.
Additionally, option B have them one one screen, but they are separated by LDAP and Firewall settings. Reconsidering these screens ~ maybe LDAP and Firewall do not belong there at all. They aren't actually related to service (status) at all.
BTW, I replied mainly to remind you to keep Ken in CC. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Ancor, I, for one, would like to applaud your effort on this. You've done a really good job and I really appreciate your work. Because we have no real feedback from customers or product managers we'll end up having to make a decision based on our best judgement and the information you have provided in this document. If there should be negative feedback in the future about this design we'll know more about the assumptions we've based this decision upon - and learn from them. So, beyond back-patting, I would say that Option A seems like the best idea. It'll work better across both CLI and GUI interfaces because the UI is not too long/large/cluttered. Having said that, I am not our customers. Existing users might complain. Important for us is to not immediately jump to conclusions when a few bug reports come in after we change this UI. I'd assume that those who actually like the change will ever have their voice heard. We do need to keep an eye on things and listen to the feedback, bugs and such. We do not need to revert changes just because one or two people loudly express their critic but rather gather the information and again, make an informed (and well documented) decision. Hope that helps and/or makes sense, Ken On 28/04/15 12:27, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
Last week we implemented a prototype of a reusable component to manage services in YaST modules and applied it to yast-dns-server.
So I updated the infamous "YaST service management" document[1] to show the two alternatives of usage of the new component. Feedback (from UI expert or anybody else) is appreciated so we can decide which option (labeled "A" and "B") in the document is better in general.
The first page of the document is unchanged, so you can skip it if you already know the problem.
Cheers.
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQO-bdqagSOUssGqJsf3eEeMDh2w40BujdOFP9-t...
-- Kenneth Wimer SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nürnberg, Germany Phone: +49 911 740 53-669 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Dienstag, 28. April 2015 schrieb Ancor Gonzalez Sosa:
Last week we implemented a prototype of a reusable component to manage services in YaST modules and applied it to yast-dns-server.
So I updated the infamous "YaST service management" document[1] to show the two alternatives of usage of the new component. Feedback (from UI expert or anybody else) is appreciated so we can decide which option (labeled "A" and "B") in the document is better in general.
Option A is confusing because the (IMHO related) "start now" and "start on boot" options are in separate tabs. Also, the firewall settings apply for both, so having them only in the Start-Up tab adds more confusion. Therefore I clearly prefer option B because it has all related options around startup in one place. A little detail: I don't know much about bind, but I'm slightly surprised about the "[ ] LDAP Support Active" option - why is this option on the same tab as the start now/on boot settings? I'd guess "LDAP Support Active" is a config option for bind, and therefore should be on another tab (maybe "Basic Options"?) To sum it up - I'd take option B with the "LDAP Support Active" option moved to another tab. And I'd propose to use _exactly_ that screen for all services. If you think option B has too much on one page, move the firewall settings to a separate "Firewall" tab. That's still better than option A ;-) (and if a service needs multiple independent ports (for example, 80 and 443 for Apache), you even have some room for more checkboxes) Regards, Christian Boltz -- Meine Rechner sind seit einem Jahr ein Naturschutzgebiet für Pinguine. ;)) [Michael Raab in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 28.4.2015 22:50, Christian Boltz wrote:
I don't know much about bind, but I'm slightly surprised about the "[ ] LDAP Support Active" option - why is this option on the same tab as the start now/on boot settings?
I'd guess "LDAP Support Active" is a config option for bind, and therefore should be on another tab (maybe "Basic Options"?)
It's a generic Bind option to store records in LDAP. Well, we could label then checkbox "Store DNS Records in LDAP" then, that's true. But we didn't have any "general options" and for that reason, we just put it next to firewall and named service.
To sum it up - I'd take option B with the "LDAP Support Active" option moved to another tab. And I'd propose to use _exactly_ that screen for all services.
I'd actually move LDAP + Firewall to some other tab as services start/enable belong to each other from my POV.
If you think option B has too much on one page, move the firewall settings to a separate "Firewall" tab. That's still better than option A ;-) (and if a service needs multiple independent ports (for example, 80 and 443 for Apache), you even have some room for more checkboxes)
This is not needed. There will always be just one checkbox for all ports at once. Yast always enables a service defined in /etc/sysconfig/SuSEfirewall2.d/services/ instead of opening/closing ports in firewall. See http://kobliha-suse.blogspot.cz/2008/06/firewall-services-defined-by-package... (sorry for the advert). Bye Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader SLE Department, SUSE Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
Hi all, I'm on the list now, so no more need to put me in CC...sorry for that, I know that it gets annoying :-( I think that in general we need to differentiate between the main functions of the UI (starting and stopping services during run-time and configuring the starting and stopping services at boot.) and the various options around those functions. It seems (correct me if I am wrong, this is just a guess) that the firewall option was added to this UI to accommodate the primary use-case, or most common user path: starting service and then unblocking the port for the service to actually work. The rest of the UI however, seems like a toolkit of functions and all their possible options and related functions. The first question I would ask would be: Do we want to make a UI which makes it easy for a user to accomplish the primary and secondary use-cases or do we want to present a toolkit with all possible functions and options. Mixing these options means more work over the long-run...building a UI that is a toolkit for all possible functions and options AND adding bits here and there to represent the most common user paths. I guess it all comes down to out target users, and I'd assume that we currently have little or no solid information on them. I won't go into the details about LDAP or such because I think we need to answer these bigger questions first. On 29/04/15 08:30, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 28.4.2015 22:50, Christian Boltz wrote:
I don't know much about bind, but I'm slightly surprised about the "[ ] LDAP Support Active" option - why is this option on the same tab as the start now/on boot settings?
I'd guess "LDAP Support Active" is a config option for bind, and therefore should be on another tab (maybe "Basic Options"?) It's a generic Bind option to store records in LDAP. Well, we could label then checkbox "Store DNS Records in LDAP" then, that's true.
But we didn't have any "general options" and for that reason, we just put it next to firewall and named service.
To sum it up - I'd take option B with the "LDAP Support Active" option moved to another tab. And I'd propose to use _exactly_ that screen for all services. I'd actually move LDAP + Firewall to some other tab as services start/enable belong to each other from my POV.
If you think option B has too much on one page, move the firewall settings to a separate "Firewall" tab. That's still better than option A ;-) (and if a service needs multiple independent ports (for example, 80 and 443 for Apache), you even have some room for more checkboxes) This is not needed. There will always be just one checkbox for all ports at once. Yast always enables a service defined in /etc/sysconfig/SuSEfirewall2.d/services/ instead of opening/closing ports in firewall. See http://kobliha-suse.blogspot.cz/2008/06/firewall-services-defined-by-package... (sorry for the advert).
Bye Lukas
-- Kenneth Wimer SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nürnberg, Germany Phone: +49 911 740 53-669 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 04/29/2015 11:19 AM, Kenneth Wimer wrote:
Hi all,
I'm on the list now, so no more need to put me in CC...sorry for that, I know that it gets annoying :-(
I think that in general we need to differentiate between the main functions of the UI (starting and stopping services during run-time and configuring the starting and stopping services at boot.) and the various options around those functions.
I agree the module is typically used for 2 use cases: controlling the status (which includes firewall and all that) and configuring the service. I'm not so sure, nevertheless, that the first one deserves to be called primary. I guess some users see the module just as a configuration tool and use the services YaST module or even command line to start/stop and enable/disable. That's what I would expect from server's sysadmins. I guess some users only run the module once in a while to start/stop the service without tweaking the configuration. That's what I would expect in computers that are actually not servers, but can need the service active for a particular purpose during a particular time frame. I also can imagine we everything in between, as usual with YaST.
It seems (correct me if I am wrong, this is just a guess) that the firewall option was added to this UI to accommodate the primary use-case, or most common user path: starting service and then unblocking the port for the service to actually work.
Most likely, yes.
The rest of the UI however, seems like a toolkit of functions and all their possible options and related functions. The first question I would ask would be: Do we want to make a UI which makes it easy for a user to accomplish the primary and secondary use-cases or do we want to present a toolkit with all possible functions and options.
Mixing these options means more work over the long-run...building a UI that is a toolkit for all possible functions and options AND adding bits here and there to represent the most common user paths. I guess it all comes down to out target users, and I'd assume that we currently have little or no solid information on them.
Actually we don't have that information, but even though it makes sense to me to group all the things related to the so-called "primary" use case into one initial screen.
I won't go into the details about LDAP or such because I think we need to answer these bigger questions first.
Those were my 2 cents.
On 29/04/15 08:30, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 28.4.2015 22:50, Christian Boltz wrote:
I don't know much about bind, but I'm slightly surprised about the "[ ] LDAP Support Active" option - why is this option on the same tab as the start now/on boot settings?
I'd guess "LDAP Support Active" is a config option for bind, and therefore should be on another tab (maybe "Basic Options"?) It's a generic Bind option to store records in LDAP. Well, we could label then checkbox "Store DNS Records in LDAP" then, that's true.
But we didn't have any "general options" and for that reason, we just put it next to firewall and named service.
To sum it up - I'd take option B with the "LDAP Support Active" option moved to another tab. And I'd propose to use _exactly_ that screen for all services. I'd actually move LDAP + Firewall to some other tab as services start/enable belong to each other from my POV.
If you think option B has too much on one page, move the firewall settings to a separate "Firewall" tab. That's still better than option A ;-) (and if a service needs multiple independent ports (for example, 80 and 443 for Apache), you even have some room for more checkboxes) This is not needed. There will always be just one checkbox for all ports at once. Yast always enables a service defined in /etc/sysconfig/SuSEfirewall2.d/services/ instead of opening/closing ports in firewall. See http://kobliha-suse.blogspot.cz/2008/06/firewall-services-defined-by-package...
(sorry for the advert).
Bye Lukas
-- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, after the discussion we just had at the YaST workshop, here's my proposal ("written" in GIMP ;-) - see the attached screenshot. I removed two things: - the "[ ] LDAP support active" checkbox - should go to another screen - After saving the config "( ) stop the service" - that's an unrealistic usecase IMHO (if you want to stop the service, you typically don't care about the config ;-) The second change also means that we can replace the radio buttons with a checkbox [x] Reload/restart the service after saving settings which should be enabled by default. This gives us enough space to keep the firewall settings on the same page - but if you really, really want, you can also move it to another page. Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz -- "Never surf faster, than your guardian penguin can fly!"
On 05/02/2015 11:38 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
after the discussion we just had at the YaST workshop, here's my proposal ("written" in GIMP ;-) - see the attached screenshot.
I removed two things: - the "[ ] LDAP support active" checkbox - should go to another screen - After saving the config "( ) stop the service" - that's an unrealistic usecase IMHO (if you want to stop the service, you typically don't care about the config ;-)
The second change also means that we can replace the radio buttons with a checkbox [x] Reload/restart the service after saving settings which should be enabled by default.
This gives us enough space to keep the firewall settings on the same page - but if you really, really want, you can also move it to another page.
And actually looks much closer to the original proposal I was trying to implement[1] (discussed in this thread[2]). [1] https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1cVv4FY4tWRLAnMG96Cdfvw8asTNpzhFUdKn4TEq8... [2] http://lists.opensuse.org/yast-devel/2015-04/msg00007.html -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 2.5.2015 11:38, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
after the discussion we just had at the YaST workshop, here's my proposal ("written" in GIMP ;-) - see the attached screenshot.
I removed two things: - the "[ ] LDAP support active" checkbox - should go to another screen - After saving the config "( ) stop the service" - that's an unrealistic usecase IMHO (if you want to stop the service, you typically don't care about the config ;-)
The second change also means that we can replace the radio buttons with a checkbox [x] Reload/restart the service after saving settings which should be enabled by default.
This gives us enough space to keep the firewall settings on the same page - but if you really, really want, you can also move it to another page.
I like the proposal. - Start/Stop and Enable/Disable are on the same screen - Even save, but do not exit - is there What is still a bit weir is "Currently" which is IMO "Current status" or something similar
Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-)
Yes, that's the problem, where to put it? Alone? If we create another screen, LDAP check-box would be there alone. So, maybe also move firewall there too? On the other hand, moving firewall elsewhere would move it also from the obvious place where I'd expect it. To fix that problem, we might need to always check whether the service would be reachable (firewall stopped or port opened) before saving the configuration and maybe asking user to confirm that? BTW, side note: Firewall is disabled doesn't help the user to understand that they can't open a port in disabled firewall. Just changing the label to be more informative might help. Yes, I know it's a generic thing in CWM. Thx for your ideas Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader SLE Department, SUSE Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/04/2015 10:21 AM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 2.5.2015 11:38, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
after the discussion we just had at the YaST workshop, here's my proposal ("written" in GIMP ;-) - see the attached screenshot.
I removed two things: - the "[ ] LDAP support active" checkbox - should go to another screen - After saving the config "( ) stop the service" - that's an unrealistic usecase IMHO (if you want to stop the service, you typically don't care about the config ;-)
The second change also means that we can replace the radio buttons with a checkbox [x] Reload/restart the service after saving settings which should be enabled by default.
This gives us enough space to keep the firewall settings on the same page - but if you really, really want, you can also move it to another page.
I like the proposal.
- Start/Stop and Enable/Disable are on the same screen - Even save, but do not exit - is there
What is still a bit weir is
"Currently" which is IMO "Current status" or something similar
I have a different issue (but maybe it can be solved by wording): If a service is running now and I want it to be stopped when the module finishes, how will I do it? It sounds like the only way is to stop the service and then finish the module, but it cannot be achieved via setting the check boxes... Jiri
Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-)
Yes, that's the problem, where to put it? Alone? If we create another screen, LDAP check-box would be there alone. So, maybe also move firewall there too? On the other hand, moving firewall elsewhere would move it also from the obvious place where I'd expect it.
To fix that problem, we might need to always check whether the service would be reachable (firewall stopped or port opened) before saving the configuration and maybe asking user to confirm that?
BTW, side note: Firewall is disabled doesn't help the user to understand that they can't open a port in disabled firewall. Just changing the label to be more informative might help. Yes, I know it's a generic thing in CWM.
Thx for your ideas Lukas
-- Regards, Jiri Srain Project Manager --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: jsrain@suse.com Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 084 659 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 084 001 Czech Republic http://www.suse.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, 04 May 2015 10:44:01 +0200 Jiri Srain <jsrain@suse.cz> wrote:
On 05/04/2015 10:21 AM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 2.5.2015 11:38, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
after the discussion we just had at the YaST workshop, here's my proposal ("written" in GIMP ;-) - see the attached screenshot.
I removed two things: - the "[ ] LDAP support active" checkbox - should go to another screen - After saving the config "( ) stop the service" - that's an unrealistic usecase IMHO (if you want to stop the service, you typically don't care about the config ;-)
The second change also means that we can replace the radio buttons with a checkbox [x] Reload/restart the service after saving settings which should be enabled by default.
This gives us enough space to keep the firewall settings on the same page - but if you really, really want, you can also move it to another page.
I like the proposal.
- Start/Stop and Enable/Disable are on the same screen - Even save, but do not exit - is there
What is still a bit weir is
"Currently" which is IMO "Current status" or something similar
I have a different issue (but maybe it can be solved by wording): If a service is running now and I want it to be stopped when the module finishes, how will I do it? It sounds like the only way is to stop the service and then finish the module, but it cannot be achieved via setting the check boxes...
Jiri
Question is why you want it after finish? I think clicking on "stop now" do almost same and if you want to have it stopped, then I think it doesn't matter when. Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Montag, 4. Mai 2015 schrieb Jiri Srain:
On 05/04/2015 10:21 AM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 2.5.2015 11:38, Christian Boltz wrote:
after the discussion we just had at the YaST workshop, here's my proposal ("written" in GIMP ;-) - see the attached screenshot.
I like the proposal.
:-)
- Start/Stop and Enable/Disable are on the same screen - Even save, but do not exit - is there
What is still a bit weir is
"Currently" which is IMO "Current status" or something similar
I was too lazy to push around letters in GIMP - but if this is the only problem in my proposal, I'm more than happy ;-)
I have a different issue (but maybe it can be solved by wording): If a service is running now and I want it to be stopped when the module finishes, how will I do it? It sounds like the only way is to stop the service and then finish the module, but it cannot be achieved via setting the check boxes...
See Josef's mail - this is possible by clicking "stop now" - and I'd really be interested why you want to stop a service after changing its config. (This somehow reminds me to one of my commit messages for AppArmor - "now that function xy was fixed, drop it" ;-) I'd guess this is a rare usecase, and by moving the support for it to the "stop now" button I was able to make the dialog much more usable and easier to understand.
Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-)
Yes, that's the problem, where to put it? Alone? If we create another screen, LDAP check-box would be there alone. So, maybe also move firewall there too? On the other hand, moving firewall elsewhere would move it also from the obvious place where I'd expect it.
Please keep the firewall settings on the start now/on boot page - it makes most sense there. And yes, the LDAP checkbox might end up on a separate page with nothing else. This doesn't hurt IMHO because it's a totally different setting. IIRC the "basic options" page is already crowded - otherwise this would have been a possible place for the LDAP checkbox.
To fix that problem, we might need to always check whether the service would be reachable (firewall stopped or port opened) before saving the configuration and maybe asking user to confirm that?
Good question ;-) Basically it's a good idea, but there might also be people who set up a nameserver just for usage from localhost, and those people would be annoyed by the confirmation popup.
BTW, side note: Firewall is disabled doesn't help the user to understand that they can't open a port in disabled firewall. Just changing the label to be more informative might help.
Indeed. Regards, Christian Boltz -- Das Ziel des Trolls ist [...] der Gegenseite genug Seil zu reichen, damit sie sich selbst in aller Öffentlichkeit erhängen kann. [Fefe in http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=b3558afe] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/09/2015 01:06 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Montag, 4. Mai 2015 schrieb Jiri Srain:
On 05/04/2015 10:21 AM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 2.5.2015 11:38, Christian Boltz wrote:
What is still a bit weir is
"Currently" which is IMO "Current status" or something similar
I was too lazy to push around letters in GIMP - but if this is the only problem in my proposal, I'm more than happy ;-)
"Current status" would be ok (much better than "currently" which was just a temporary solution). But the problem is that this has been exactly the confusing point to some users. We need something more explicit meaning "Status (currently and after saving settings)". Remember one of the many manifestations of the original problem: some people expected that enabling the service at boot would mean that the service is running after pressing "ok" (even if it's currently stopped). They seem to got confused even though the old UI also had the buttons for starting/stopping just in the same tab. I believe (or hope) it can be fixed with the proper labels, but I'm not creative enough. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/13/2015 09:31 AM, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
On 05/09/2015 01:06 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Montag, 4. Mai 2015 schrieb Jiri Srain:
On 05/04/2015 10:21 AM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 2.5.2015 11:38, Christian Boltz wrote:
What is still a bit weir is
"Currently" which is IMO "Current status" or something similar
I was too lazy to push around letters in GIMP - but if this is the only problem in my proposal, I'm more than happy ;-)
"Current status" would be ok (much better than "currently" which was just a temporary solution). But the problem is that this has been exactly the confusing point to some users. We need something more explicit meaning "Status (currently and after saving settings)".
Remember one of the many manifestations of the original problem: some people expected that enabling the service at boot would mean that the service is running after pressing "ok" (even if it's currently stopped). They seem to got confused even though the old UI also had the buttons for starting/stopping just in the same tab.
I believe (or hope) it can be fixed with the proper labels, but I'm not creative enough.
So, who can help me with the labels of the widgets and the help messages? Here you are the ones in the current prototype: http://paste.opensuse.org/22250719 Keep in mind that the labels should be self-explanatory with no room for doubts or ambiguity and the help... well, the help text should be useful :-) Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 14.5.2015 12:22, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
So, who can help me with the labels of the widgets and the help messages? Here you are the ones in the current prototype: http://paste.opensuse.org/22250719
Keep in mind that the labels should be self-explanatory with no room for doubts or ambiguity and the help... well, the help text should be useful :-)
Just a few notes: - "Current status" ~ this is self-explanatory - "Reload the service..." ~ also self-explanatory, but should be [_] unselected when service is stopped - "Start service..." ~ also self-explanatory, but maybe "...system boot" - According to style guide, all check-boxes "Should Use This Style" "Instead of this style". - What still makes me a bit lost is how this is presented to the user. Below, you can see a Firewall() frame, but I'm (maybe) lacking some Service() frame around all these settings. Then you could maybe even remove all "service(s)" from texts. - "Save settings now without closing" ~ it's a button, so "Save Settings ...", and maybe it's too long if you consider translations examples (using mechanical translations) - i-save ang mga setting na ngayon na walang pagsasara - enregistrer les paramètres maintenant, sans fermeture - instellings op te slaan nou sonder sluitingsdatum - menteni a beállításokat most lezárása nélkül what about just [Apply Changes]? - Módosítások alkalmazása - Өзгертулерді қолдану - Piemērot izmaiņas Thanks ;) Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader SLE Department, SUSE Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 schrieb Ancor Gonzalez Sosa:
On 05/13/2015 09:31 AM, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote: ...
"Current status" would be ok (much better than "currently" which was just a temporary solution). But the problem is that this has been exactly the confusing point to some users. We need something more explicit meaning "Status (currently and after saving settings)".
I think "Current status" is enough - especially in combination with greying out "reload the service after saving settings" if current status is "stopped". An alternative would be: Instead of greying out the "Reload the service after saving" for stopped services, change it to "Start the service after saving settings" (with the checkbox _not_ ticked by default) - but I'm not sure if having a totally different label and checkbox default depending on the current status is a good idea or if it introduces confusion. (The problem with this approach is that we would need to change the label and the checkbox status when someone clicks "Start now" / "Stop now".)
I believe (or hope) it can be fixed with the proper labels, but I'm not creative enough.
So, who can help me with the labels of the widgets and the help messages? Here you are the ones in the current prototype: http://paste.opensuse.org/22250719
Looks good :-) Maybe a minor addition for the "Start service during boot" help text: ... to disable the service. _This only affects starting the service on boot, but_ does not affect the current status... Regards, Christian Boltz -- Ich springe so oft aus dem Fenster, daß ich ein schnurloses Telefon habe. [Ratti in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/02/2015 11:38 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-)
My first option (already in the prototype) was adding a "LDAP Support" tab for it containing only the LDAP checkbox. The tab looked quite empty and Josef suggested then to move the checkbox to some of the already existing tabs. So I did this[1]: http://paste.opensuse.org/80519760 Aesthetically it's quite ok. But I don't like it because I assume that "LDAP support active" affects all the settings, like forwarders, ACLs and all that. If that checkbox only affects to the so-called basic options, I'm fine. If not, I prefer the almost empty tab rather than this "beautiful" but wrongly grouped one. Opinions? [1] By the way, I also swapped the order of the table and the add/modify frame. I dunno if we have a style guide about it, but to me it looks nicer and more intuitive with the table first and the form below. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 14.5.2015 16:54, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
On 05/02/2015 11:38 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-)
My first option (already in the prototype) was adding a "LDAP Support" tab for it containing only the LDAP checkbox.
The tab looked quite empty and Josef suggested then to move the checkbox to some of the already existing tabs. So I did this[1]: http://paste.opensuse.org/80519760
I like how it looks now. It's a basic option.
Aesthetically it's quite ok. But I don't like it because I assume that "LDAP support active" affects all the settings, like forwarders, ACLs and all that. If that checkbox only affects to the so-called basic options, I'm fine. If not, I prefer the almost empty tab rather than this "beautiful" but wrongly grouped one.
Opinions?
In fact, LDAP support is only for resource records - zones, nothing else. So maybe it actually belongs to DNS Zones tab?
[1] By the way, I also swapped the order of the table and the add/modify frame. I dunno if we have a style guide about it, but to me it looks nicer and more intuitive with the table first and the form below.
Well, Add/Change are grouped by a frame and Delete is not? That actually looks strange. Our style guide says something else: Add/Delete/Change (or similar) below the table. Change opens up a pop-up with OK/Cancel buttons. Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader SLE Department, SUSE Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
On 05/15/2015 08:50 AM, Lukas Ocilka wrote:
On 14.5.2015 16:54, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
On 05/02/2015 11:38 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Oh, and don't forget to re-add the LDAP checkbox somewhere ;-)
My first option (already in the prototype) was adding a "LDAP Support" tab for it containing only the LDAP checkbox.
The tab looked quite empty and Josef suggested then to move the checkbox to some of the already existing tabs. So I did this[1]: http://paste.opensuse.org/80519760
I like how it looks now. It's a basic option.
Aesthetically it's quite ok. But I don't like it because I assume that "LDAP support active" affects all the settings, like forwarders, ACLs and all that. If that checkbox only affects to the so-called basic options, I'm fine. If not, I prefer the almost empty tab rather than this "beautiful" but wrongly grouped one.
Opinions?
In fact, LDAP support is only for resource records - zones, nothing else. So maybe it actually belongs to DNS Zones tab?
Then, definitely! I don't even know how it ended up in "Start-up" if it's used only for storing zones and we have a "DNS Zones" tab.
[1] By the way, I also swapped the order of the table and the add/modify frame. I dunno if we have a style guide about it, but to me it looks nicer and more intuitive with the table first and the form below.
Well, Add/Change are grouped by a frame and Delete is not? That actually looks strange. Our style guide says something else: Add/Delete/Change (or similar) below the table. Change opens up a pop-up with OK/Cancel buttons.
So many things to change in that UI... But let's do one thing at a time. Since we are not placing the LDAP checkbox there, I will even leave the whole "Basic Options" untouched, as it was at the very beginning. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Ancor Gonzalez Sosa -
Christian Boltz -
Jiri Srain -
Josef Reidinger -
Kenneth Wimer -
Lukas Ocilka