<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#333333">
Hi Liz,<br>
<br>
thanks a lot for your feedback, I'll add some inline notes:<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/02/10 20:04, Liz Blanchard
wrote:<br>
</div>
<br>
[snip]<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hi Jarda,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I just wanted to send along my feedback on the current
state of the Rack and Resource Class creation wireframes…</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?-->
<b style="font-family: Arial; ">Rack Creation</b>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">1) Even though it looks like
with the edit icon, I think for consistencies sake, we could
just label the "Name" of the L-Group similar to the other
fields.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I agree, I already got the feedback from others and have it
fixed. I am just working on other improvements before sending
updated version out. Anyway, good point.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">2) Should the "Provisioning
Image" field be in line with the rest of the form? It feels
a bit out of place being under the add node. Especially if
you are adding one image for the entire L-Group.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You are adding the image only for Management Node which you are
going to provision directly to the list of Nodes, that's why it is
under the list of Nodes, because it relates to that.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">3) What would you expect the
"?" icon to give the user in the upper right corner of the
modal? <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It's just quick sketch for help, I don't know yet how it will
behave, I need to design whole helping system in forms.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">4) I think we should denote
any required fields.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I was not thinking about this at the moment, I was more
focusing on the cencepts. Need to add it there.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">5) Maybe we should add some
sort of edit icon or link to let the users know that they
can edit Node settings after it's been added.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Good point.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">6) We should allow users to
remove nodes quickly after they've been added. Rather than
having to click on the node and then choose the delete
option.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree, I already added Edit & Remove icons to the list.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">7) I'm not sure we need the
extra "Choose Image:" text in the drop down for provisioning
image. Maybe you could replace the "Provisioning image…"
with "Choose Image"?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
OK.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">8) I think we should specify
the type of node we are adding for the Management Nodes. So
rather than "Add Node…" it should read "Add Management
Node…"</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
For Management Node - yes, this will be very helpful.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">9) I think the second button
should read "Create and Provision" rather than "Create and
go to Provisioning".</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It should not, because at that moment of clicking the button, you
are going to create the l-group but you are not provisioning, you
continue to provisioning part. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; "><b>Resource Class Creation</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">1) I think the "Choose
Type:" should read "Class Type:".</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree, already fixed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">2) I think it would be best
to auto-select one of the Class types by default. It feels
weird to me that we wouldn't default to the first, for
example.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I am not sure about this, because there is no default option for
user. There is no expectation what would be the most used option.
But I will try to think about htat and if possible incorporate it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">3) We should think about how
the Class Type selection scales. As users are allowed to add
more resource classes, maybe this selection should live in a
drop down to support 5-8 different classes.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
This shouldn't happen. There are no other services which you can
provide by cloud - you can provide only compute or storage services,
so I don't expect this scaling.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">4) I think the icons that
you are used for linked vs. not linked are backwards. Also,
I think the lines could be removed if the values are
unlinked. Here is an example of what photoshop uses for if
the values are constrained:
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; "><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://people.redhat.com/%7Elsurette/OpenStack/PS%20Link">http://people.redhat.com/~lsurette/OpenStack/PS%20Link</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't think they are backwards, by default everything is unlinked.
Dotted line helps to link the icon to the desired selection which
will be linked then.<br>
Anyway, this is very further future and we don't have to deal with
this now, it won't be part of v1 or v2. We will see if users really
need this feature and based on it we can implement it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">5) Similar to #7 in Rack
feedback, I don't think we need the labeling "Choose
Property" in the drop down.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">6) Even though Units doesn't
make sense in the example you give, I think it should still
be labeled "Units" and be greyed out.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Maybe. I am not very sure about this. because if I leave <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">7) How is the hardware
assignment step different from the Optional Provisioning
step other than assigning images to the nodes? I wonder if
these two steps could be combined?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
They shouldn't because then you go to provisioning process. It is
different activity to assign nodes to the class or to go to node
provisioning, it was decided to be split.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; ">8) Do you think users will
want to define different types of nodes within one resource
class? Or do you think they will want to break these out
into different resource classes? For example there could be
two types of m1.compute classes based on the hardware
profile. I wonder it this would make it easier to monitor
and alert on these two specific types of hardware? This
might be something we can ask early adopter users to get a
feeling on how they would prefer to use classes.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Based on flexibility needs, we should allow user to assign different
hardware to one resource class (e.g. user upgraded his hardware but
wants to continue in providing the same service).<br>
Resource class is more focused on provided service and the hardware
profile information is there because we need to assure the service
being provided correctly (SLA).<br>
<br>
You can't have two types of m1.compute, then you will get into 2
different compute classes where each has it's own set of flavors.<br>
<br>
Imagine smaller deployments, where you have mixed type of hardware.
And you want to provide compute service with 5 flavors. But because
you have 3 different vendors of each machine, you have to have 3
different compute classes, but providing same service. Furthermore
in each you are specifying flavors so you will end up with 3
different sets of flavors in the end.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:89F2752F-76A0-4BE2-B36D-CC37D1B71999@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Please let me know if you have any questions on these.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Liz</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
[snip]<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
-- Jarda<br>
</body>
</html>