<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#333333;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This topic has been available on ux-askbot and ux Google+ forum before that for months. Based on that alone,
I don’t believe the vote was limited. All input was taken and considered. In the end, there are strong opinions on both sides.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What the final outcome was… We’ll implement the vertical navigation by default and write the html such that skinning
to make the navigation horizontal should be as easy as writing the less and potentially additional js for it (thinking of screen width overflow). I’m not sure we want to take on the burden of supporting an implementation of both layout directions in horizon,
but there may be workable solutions there.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As other icehouse blueprints depend on the navigation upgrade, I’d rather not keep rehashing this topic.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">-David Lyle<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font size="2" color="black" face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font size="2" color="black" face="Tahoma"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
Jaromir Coufal [mailto:jcoufal@redhat.com] <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:25 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> OpenStack Development Mailing List<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [openstack-dev] [UX] Weekly topic - Horizon Navigation<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" color="#333333" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" color="#333333" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Dear OpenStack community,<br>
<br>
each week we are going to highlight some interesting and important UX topics here on the mailing list (though I will be referencing a lot to the Askbot tool, which we use for discussions).<br>
<br>
At the moment, we are asking for attention for <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Horizon's navigation redesign</span></b>:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/2/openstack-dashboard-navigation-redesign/">http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/2/openstack-dashboard-navigation-redesign/</a><br>
<br>
Some time before summit we started to invest time into navigation enhancements. There started horizontal proposal [0] and based on some feedback, we tried to provide vertical solution [1] as well. At summit there was super interesting discussion about interaction
in both approaches. At the end of session, we had a voting which ended in favor of vertical navigation (won in ratio about 6:4). There were strong arguments for vertical as well as for horizontal approach.<br>
<br>
Lately, there were some voices that voting was based on limited audience, so I'd like to bring this issue up here. We don't want to be blocked forever, choosing 'perfect' solution. We will try to deliver solution so that people can easily switch from vertical
to horizontal (or vice versa) just by skinning anyway. So for the moment we want to find preferred way for OpenStack upstream, which we will be enhancing in time. What is important to take into account is to keep on mind latest IA [2], which is still in progress,
but we have pretty good picture which direction we are going.<br>
<br>
Whoever is interested in navigation topic or has some preferences one way or another, we are looking forward to hearing from you here or in the Askbot thread.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
-- Jarda<br>
<br>
--- Jaromir Coufal (jcoufal)<br>
--- OpenStack User Experience<br>
--- IRC: #openstack-ux (at FreeNode)<br>
--- Forum: <a href="http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com">http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com</a><br>
--- Wiki: <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/UX">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/UX</a><br>
<br>
[0] Horizontal: <a href="http://people.redhat.com/~lsurette/OpenStack/Navigation%20Enhancement%20Proposal_v3.0.pdf">
http://people.redhat.com/~lsurette/OpenStack/Navigation%20Enhancement%20Proposal_v3.0.pdf</a><br>
[1] Vertical: <a href="http://people.redhat.com/~jcoufal/openstack/navigation/2013-12-03_os_navigation_vertical.pdf">
http://people.redhat.com/~jcoufal/openstack/navigation/2013-12-03_os_navigation_vertical.pdf</a><br>
[2] Information Architecture: <a href="http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/1/openstack-ui-information-architecture/?answer=94#post-id-94">
http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/1/openstack-ui-information-architecture/?answer=94#post-id-94</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>