Feb. 16, 2007 Agenda and Minutes

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Feb 16, 2007Version comment
4 min read

Breeze meeting hosted by Cambridge.

Agenda

  • 2.4 design discussion
    • Harriet's design mockups
    • how to do it as part of a trajectory toward a 2.5 design (i.e. minimally disruptive)
    • what things can be done
  • Establishing next steps

Minutes of a sort:

  • Google docs button drop-down, but that raises accessibility concerns with its javascript already
  • Jim: a lot of tools already use js, and i'm not sure how much of Sakai would work without it
  • Kathy: not sure js is a problem in principle, but i'm not sure where js introduces accessibility issues
    • as soon as something hidden and not HTML
  • we should run these things past Mike Elledge
  • Jim: I think there are serious accessibility issues with resource right now.
  • Jim: about the drop-down button - is there a reason that a simple drop-down element wouldn't work? Because that would involve no js.
  • Harriet: takes up less room, looks better, that's really it.
  • Kathy: I think the button is so much nicer that we should look into it, we should just be clear about that before we head too far down that road.
  • there does seem to be some "anti-button" sentiment out there in the design community, and not sure if those objections might be raised here as well.
  • the original design in fact turned a button into a link - do we have the rationale for that?
  • Jim: I don't think that was a resource-specific issue, it was more of a style guide thing to be applied across tools, and the resources change was a by-product of that.
    • I think it has to do with establishing some consistent semantics about what should be a link and what should be a button
  • Harriet: that makes sense, but perhaps it's now time to re-examine
  • Jim: it would be good if you brought this up to the UI DG to re-surface some of this thinking that came out of the style guide process - we should get that input
  • Harriet: yes, but I'd like to have some usability data to actually show first, to better support the discussion
  • Jim: I was suggesting something a little different. If we want to draw out what the issues are, rather than just prevailing in the debate, it might be better to begin with the discussion again
  • Harriet: it could also be important for the discussion to not appear to be about ideas simply springing from our own heads.
  • Harriet: We don't want to change things too much for 2.4 and then change them again for 2.5, so that's why the current 2.4 mockup is minimal
  • Harriet: I'll try to develop an HTML mockup and get some user responses, and then go out to the UI DG and get some more feedback
  • Harriet: I poked around in Google docs JS. Complex. Not sure how much of it is necessary, but it may turn into a lot of work.
  • Jim: you've taken out the "checked" language
  • Harriet: doesn't mean anything in the UK, or it's confusing. Google uses "select" rather than "check," which is a little more global.
  • Kathy: the problem is still how scattered across the page so many actions are
  • Jim: we're talking about maybe for 2.5 doing some refactoring, which may involve consolidating actions in a certain location at the top, which will be sensitive to what's been selected - but let's not tinker with that for 2.4, since that may change
  • Harriet: Let's minimize the changes for 2.4, yes.
  • Harriet: There's consistency across versions of the tool, and then there's consistency within the tool, and there's some tension between that in the current design.
  • Jim: We've collapsed actions into "Add," but someone had earlier raised the idea that uploading files and adding folders are conceptually different operations for a user, and perhaps they shouldn't both fall under the same umbrella, which has to be navigated through. Thoughts?
  • Harriet: I'd say let's think about that for 2.5, because i'm not sure we have the time to treat that well, and then possibly create a change will have to be undone for 2.5
  • Kathy: WebCT at one point was using a separate noun-verb construction which offers a lot of power and flexibility
  • what's our next step?
    • feedback on accessibility
    • feedback on buttons vs. links in action area
    • some user evaluation with an HTML mockup (Harriet)
    • implement at some point soon
  • Jim: under "add" there should be a list of actions and not types, because they really are distinct actions not only as nouns, but also as verbs
  • Harriet: what sort of things would appear there
  • Jim: it's a little out there, but the main point is that the labels for these various types are going to come from outside the resources tool.
  • Jim: the work we're talking about doesn't seem like too much work, but there's a little time to think about the button work. We've not talked about anything that would be a problem for getting it done for code freeze.
  • Jim: do we want to be consistent with grouping create actions with other types of actions?
  • Harriet: been working on research plans, which are almost ready to be shared. Some extracts of interviews, video diaries - needs to be shared privately for now.