Re: Blends pages, tasks pages etc.
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 08:34:27PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> > I keep on failing how you draw the conclusion what users are
>> > expecting.
>>
>> OK, so could you describe what the expections of the users here are?
>
> Long description, screenshot, citations, popcon, available in which
> release.
I didn't mean here what fields the users expect, what what they want to
do when they open the list. Kind of a user story, like "Users want to
get an overview of the existent packages". A user story like "User want
to read all long descriptions" seems a bit unrealistic to me.
> Ahh, OK. May be I was to quick since I did not clicked on anything.
> May be I was to quick here. I need more time and we probably need more
> input since I'm definitely biased. I'm personally missing the color
> where a user would be attracted to work (translation + debtags). I also
> do not see with one look whether we have packaged the latest upstream or
> not.
I could try to add them: there is the "improve entry" at the last line
where the entries could be colored or get a colored marker. However, I
regularly used your list and I never realized that they have different
colors. Green and yellow are quite similar there, and since everything
is colored "somehow", this does not jump into the eye yet.
Two point here, however: Screenshots make sense only for quite a subset
of packages, so I am not sure why people should get attracted to them in
a general way. And, Debtags seem to be obsoleted soon by Appstream,
so I am not sure how much worth the tagging effort is in the moment.
And personally, I have the "feeled experience" (cannot prove it, since I
didn't write a log for myself) that Debtags got lost somewhere in the
past -- for some of my packages I added tags, but they seem to be
gone. And since the interface is horrible, my motivation to recreate
them is quite low. Also, at least one screenshot was lost in the
past (ftools-fv).
> I was missing a clear sign that the single lines are expandable (I
> admit that the links on top are there now after looking closely).
I will add them, but still don't have a good idea, how to do
that. However, when you move the mouse to any of the lines, you get the
changed cursor which hints that there is a click possible.
> I think others should raise their opinions since I'm to biased and
> to used to the current look to be objective.
Sure; same for me. I will ask for a review on the debian-astro list.
There are however a few points which I would like to include but didn't
find the right way to do so:
* For packages in NEW, the ITP and the git repository would still as
useful as for the "packaging started" section. Is there a reason, by
blendtasktools doesn't keep them?
* d/u/metadata contains fields for the upstream RCS and upstream bug
repository. Can they be read out by blendtasktools?
* Can I get the number of RC bugs and the total number of bugs via
blendtasktools? This would significantly increase the usability :-)
Also, the CI test result would be great here.
Cheers
Ole
Reply to: