2009/8/7 Edwin Grubbs <edwin.grubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> * The change owner links in dangerous in the content, it should be >> included in the actions menu. > > This and other changes seem to be directly contrary to the old > direction of showing edit links next to the item you are editing. Have > there been users who edit things unknowingly with the edit icon in the > content? Will each possible action only appear in the sidebar of a > single page? I think the sidebar starts to be ignored when the user > thinks that the list of actions never changes. I'm a huge fan of edit-in-place and having the action next to the thing it controls (the two are slightly different.) It made my day when Malone got this for bug titles. However, I think we need to distinguish what you could call "edit" actions from "change" actions. Those are not great names but what I'm getting at is: some things just change some text on the page and while they may send mail or something they don't have very permanent or disruptive effects: if you don't like it, you can just change it back. Other things, though they may also just be an update to a database field, have wide-reaching or not-easily-reversible effects: changing the owner or name of a team is one, changing the owner or name of a branch (discussed yesterday in another thread) is another. Things that, once you set them, you may no longer have permission to change are the extreme case. I think we need to distinguish them at least mentally; I think we probably need to distinguish them in the UI too. Maybe the UI plan already accommodates this? If you agree - in what way should we distinguish them? I don't think putting the "change" link in a portlet is a great idea - it separates it from the thing it controls which makes it hard to find without really indicating it's different. We could say "(change)" rather than a yellow circle button. I'd say generally they should go to a separate dialog page that gives a one sentence description of the impact - we do this in some places now and it works well. > I assume you mean Recently Approved. I was confused for a minute. Oh, that reminds me - Recently Approved should actually mean "recently approved", not "the most recent N approved." If there's nobody in the last month, leave it out. > I think there is some danger if we only show some RSS feeds inline, > and users stop clicking on the browser's own RSS icon. I wonder - do all browsers show RSS icons and all users have them set up to work into the right reader? It's probably a safe assumption for most Launchpad users advanced enough to want a feed. -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)