Open Stack

We moved the whole conversation to new OpenStack UX discussion tool, 
feel free to follow the thread there:

http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/5/tuskar-ui-resource-class-creation/


On 2013/21/10 20:59, Liz Blanchard wrote:
> Hi Jarda,
>
> Below you will find my comments and questions on the latest version of 
> the Resource Class Creation wireframes.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Liz
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Jaromir Coufal <jcoufal at redhat.com 
> <mailto:jcoufal at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I am sending an updated version of wireframes for Resource Class 
>> Creation. Thanks everybody for your feedback, I tried to cover most 
>> of your concerns and I am sending updated version for your reviews. 
>> If you have any concerns, I am happy to discuss it with you.
>>
>> http://people.redhat.com/~jcoufal/openstack/tuskar/2013-10-16_tuskar_resource_class_creation_wireframes.pdf
>
> 1) Will the user be able to click on any of the wizard steps in the 
> menu at the top?
>
> 2) There shouldn't be a "Back" button on the first step of the wizard. 
> The user will never have an opportunity to go back from here.
>
> 3) First class should be selected by default. Especially if the field 
> that changes below is just the description.
>
> 4) Rather than labeling the class description with the class name, it 
> should be "Class Description:".
>
> 5) The "Assist" checkbox labeling is confusing. Perhaps "Assist with 
> proper halving of resources" would be better?
>
> 6) If the user unselects the "Assist" checkbox, it would be great if 
> that section could collapse to save space. Alternatively, it would 
> reappear if the user selects the checkbox again.
>
> 7) How come the user can't click the back button from the 2nd page? It 
> looks greyed out like the "Hardware Profile" button.
>
> 8) I think we need a clearer design for when a table is empty. Maybe 
> even a small message within the table along the lines of "There are 
> currently no items."
>
> 9) Rather than "Yes" and "No" in the confirmation dialog, I think it 
> would make it more clear to the user if the action they were taking is 
> used. For example "Start Over" or "Enable Assistant" would be more 
> descriptive.
>
> 10) Is the Node Profile name going to be reflected in the tab name 
> above? If so, it might be nice to fill in the field for "Profile Name" 
> to be "Node Profile 1" by default. Then it could change as the user 
> changes it in the field.
>
> 11) It would be better to name the "Add Row" link more specifically to 
> the action. Probably "Add Requirement" in this case.
>
> 12) Is the "Associated Images" field supposed to be a drop down? Or 
> should there be a Browse button? I'm just wondering why it has the 
> helper text "Choose an image".
>
> 13) Would the image have an extension associated with it? If so, it 
> might be good to show different examples here (Ex. QCOW2, ISO, IMG)
>
> 14) Are you sure we should select Nodes to assign to this resource 
> class by default? It would be nice to ask some sample users this type 
> of thing.
>
> 15) I think we can combine the label of "4 Matching Available Nodes" 
> and the select action. This way, it would be clear that the user would 
> be selecting the 4 matching nodes...
>
> 16) The filter/search should be aligned closer to the table that it is 
> filtering.
>
> 17) Where does the "L2-default_group" name come from in this list?
>
> 18) The filter description should probably be shortened to read 
> "Current Filter: group 2". Also, I think the number of results might 
> make sense to be on a different level. This might start to feel more 
> organized if the search/filter control comes down to this level so 
> that it's closer to the table.
>
> 19) If the user unselects the "Select all available" after filtering, 
> it should still unselect all 4 matching nodes. In your example you've 
> shown that only 2 of the 4 are unselected and then in screen 29 th 
> user is in a weird state where they have unselected all matching 
> nodes, but the table still shows that 2 nodes are selected. I think 
> instead, it might make sense to have a "Select All/Unselected All" 
> action at the table level.
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> -- Jarda
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131022/a9b25b6f/attachment.html>