Wiki pages...
Gary Thompson
gary at unicon.net
Fri Sep 12 22:49:32 UTC 2008
Here's my latest take on the component landing page:
http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Layout+Customizer
It doesn't yet address the component family.
Gary
Jess Mitchell wrote:
> Great stuff y'all -- one comment inline below:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jess Mitchell
> Boston, MA, USA
> Project Manager / Fluid Project
> jess at jessmitchell.com <mailto:jess at jessmitchell.com>
> / w / 617.326.7753 / c / 919.599.5378
> jabber: jessmitchell at gmail.com <mailto:jessmitchell at gmail.com>
> http://www.fluidproject.org
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 7:02 PM, erin yu wrote:
>
>>
>> I had a discussion with Gary then with Jonathan today, and updated
>> the landing page accordingly.
>> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Component+at+a+glance
>>
>> Here are the suggested improvements:
>>
>>
>> 1. naming the page the component name itself, rather than 'Component
>> at a glance'. i.e. calling the Uploader landing page "Uploader"
>> rather than "Uploader at a glance"
>>
>> 2. moving the features section up into the description box at the
>> top. The features that correspond to the storycards (in the progress
>> indicator) would be listed and explained here.
>>
>> 3. removing the Limitations section as Jonathan mentioned in his
>> email below.
>>
>> 4. Gary brought up a good point about the usefulness of the Progress
>> Indicator once the component has been developed and is 'stable'. Do
>> we still need the progress indicator then? Based on his experience
>> integrating the layout customizer, a step-by-step instructions on
>> 'how to integrate this component' would be much more useful. We
>> talked about replacing the progress indicator section with this
>> how-to section once the component is fully baked.
>
> My sense is we will continue to iterate on components even after
> they've achieved stability. And my sense is also the progress
> indicator then serves the purpose of conveying that stability and also
> providing a quick link to the individual story card "features" that
> the component incorporates. So, it serves as a quick articulation of
> what the component can do without creating a longer narrative about
> features. So, my vote would be to keep it.
>
> J
>
>>
>>
>> With these changes, the landing page looking even more concise. :)
>>
>> re: Daphne's question: yes, the integration-related pages are linked
>> from this landing page (in the grey box on the right).
>>
>>
>> On 10-Sep-08, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Hung wrote:
>>
>>> After talking with Erin, we're feeling that the "Limitations"
>>> section isn't really needed.
>>>
>>> Initially this section was to provide a space where technical
>>> limitations can be conveyed (an example is the Reorderer). However
>>> it seems a bit too low-level to be on a "at a glance" info page.
>>>
>>> Also, a reader of the page should get a pretty good idea of what the
>>> component can and can't do by the description and the listing of
>>> features. So it seems a bit redundant in that way.
>>>
>>> What do you all think? Axe Limitations or should we keep it for a
>>> purpose (and if so, what is that purpose)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Jonathan Hung / jonathan.hung at utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:jonathan.hung at utoronto.ca>
>>> University of Toronto - ATRC
>>> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM, erin yu <erin.yu at utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:erin.yu at utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is an excellent idea for the component design
>>> overview page.
>>>
>>> The landing page, in my opinion, should be concise and have
>>> quick links to design as well as integration/dev resources. In
>>> summary, I would suggest having these two overview pages per
>>> component:
>>>
>>> *[parent] Component at a glance*
>>> - serves as the landing page
>>> - explains what the component is, what it looks like, what it
>>> does, what its limitations are
>>> - has quick links to the demo, integration-related pages, and
>>> design overview (and other main design pages, TBD)
>>> |
>>> *[child] Component design overview*
>>> - answers the 3 design questions Daphne explained below
>>> - explains the problem and solution using scenarios and persona
>>> - has structured links to design resources
>>>
>>> Erin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9-Sep-08, at 8:53 PM, Daphne Ogle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Comment below...
>>>>
>>>> -Daphne
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like this a lot too. I think the use of "The Problem" and
>>>>> "The Solution" makes things very clear (and just happens to
>>>>> mirror our design pattern format! :)). I also like the concise
>>>>> explanation of the solution via the scenario, though I'm not
>>>>> sure that would map directly to our domain as I think we'll
>>>>> have multiple scenarios. I see this as sort of the "marketing"
>>>>> scenario which "sells" the solution to people coming to the
>>>>> page (boy, I'm sold on parking angel!). It might make sense
>>>>> for us to come up with sort of an overview scenario (maybe
>>>>> focusing on what we think the most urgent use cases are) for
>>>>> our components for the initial page.
>>>> Right -- this could be our primary scenario(s) or sampling of
>>>> them. The Uploader is the first component we've identified
>>>> primary scenarios for and I could definitely see showcasing a
>>>> couple of them on the main page as an overview of what the
>>>> component is meant to support.
>>>>
>>>> The other thing I like is they include a snippet of who the
>>>> user is. So it also nicely includes what I was trying to
>>>> capture on the inline edit pages -- 3 very important questions
>>>> in design: 1) Who are we designing for (persona), 2) What do
>>>> they need (primary scenario), and 3) How are we meeting those
>>>> needs (wireframes in the storyboard).
>>>>>
>>>>> Allison
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 9, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Daphne Ogle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just ran across this page on the Cooper site and really
>>>>>> like the structure and content. It's a nice clear, quick
>>>>>> snapshot about what this thing is. Could we borrow some
>>>>>> ideas for our component design pages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cooper.com/insights/concept_projects/parking_angel.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It includes the problem statement, the design goals
>>>>>> (solution) and the primary scenario storyboard. Just some
>>>>>> food for thought... We could link to all the other
>>>>>> information that's currently on our pages as child pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daphne Ogle
>>>>>> Senior Interaction Designer
>>>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>>>> Educational Technology Services
>>>>>> daphne at media.berkeley.edu <mailto:daphne at media.berkeley.edu>
>>>>>> cell (510)847-0308
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Allison Bloodworth
>>>>> Senior User Interaction Designer
>>>>> Educational Technology Services
>>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>>> (415) 377-8243
>>>>> abloodworth at berkeley.edu <mailto:abloodworth at berkeley.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daphne Ogle
>>>> Senior Interaction Designer
>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>> Educational Technology Services
>>>> daphne at media.berkeley.edu <mailto:daphne at media.berkeley.edu>
>>>> cell (510)847-0308
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>