For the hosts, I don't like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
Hosts
Managed Hosts
Discovered Hosts
Provisioning Setup
Operating System
Provisioning Templates
Partition Table
Hardware type
Architecture
I have doubts about the term 'Managed Hosts' because currently we are referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure, unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and moving LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
Infrastructure
Smart Proxies
Compute Resources
Subnets
Domains
Installation Media
The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more 'natural' to look for it.
removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported from the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
If my comments are acceptable I'll create a screenshot of the new suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
Thanks,
Amos.
···
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric D Helms"
> To: "theforeman/foreman"
> Cc: "abenari"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:57:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [foreman] Topbar5 (#987)
>
> Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
> consideration/discussion of a layout based on -
> https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after some
> discussions with @domcleal and Kyle Baker.
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/987#issuecomment-27321513
First, thanks for the consideration. Comments inline but overall I think
everything looks good.
> Hi Eric,
> I like your suggestion (https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844) and have
> some comments:
>
> For the hosts, I don't like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
>
> Hosts
> - Managed Hosts
> - Discovered Hosts
> - Provisioning Setup
> - Operating System
> - Provisioning Templates
> - Partition Table
> - Hardware type
> - Architecture
>
> I have doubts about the term 'Managed Hosts' because currently we are
> referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
> where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure,
> unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
>
Are managed and reporting hosts shown in the same list? Is there a visual
difference? Should those two be separated out to:
Managed Hosts
Reporting Hosts
Discovered Hosts
>
> For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and moving
> LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
> Infrastructure
> - Smart Proxies
> - Compute Resources
> - Subnets
> - Domains
> - Installation Media
>
> The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an
> infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more
> 'natural' to look for it.
> removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported from
> the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
>
I can see keeping LDAP and had debated it, but through it in there for two
reasons (and am fine with keeping it where it is):
Since, as I understood it, this was LDAP backend management and
configuration and not management of LDAP groups/users that it made sense to
put with the other external services management
To group external services and management of those under one menu
-Eric
···
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Amos Benari wrote:
If my comments are acceptable I’ll create a screenshot of the new
suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
Thanks,
Amos.
Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
consideration/discussion of a layout based on - https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after some
discussions with @domcleal and Kyle Baker.
> Hi Eric,
> I like your suggestion (https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844) and have
> some comments:
>
> For the hosts, I don't like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
>
> Hosts
> - Managed Hosts
> - Discovered Hosts
> - Provisioning Setup
> - Operating System
> - Provisioning Templates
> - Partition Table
> - Hardware type
> - Architecture
>
> I have doubts about the term 'Managed Hosts' because currently we are
> referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
> where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure,
> unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
>
> For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and moving
> LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
> Infrastructure
> - Smart Proxies
> - Compute Resources
> - Subnets
> - Domains
> - Installation Media
>
> The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an
> infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more
> 'natural' to look for it.
> removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported from
> the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
>
> If my comments are acceptable I'll create a screenshot of the new
> suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
>
+1
Ohad
···
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Amos Benari wrote:
Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
consideration/discussion of a layout based on - https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after some
discussions with @domcleal and Kyle Baker.
Hi,
I have tried the 2 level menu schema and it looked horrible.
having 3 items in the host menu where one is folded sub-menu, look like an unneeded
hiding of the sub-menu, so I implemented it as an unfolded sub-menu, as I have previously
done with the users menu.
Attached is the usual all-menu-open image (site-map3).
As a reference I have also attached the previous suggestion (site-map2.1).
Amos.
···
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric D Helms"
> To: "foreman-dev"
> Cc: "Eric Helms"
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:58:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Topbar5 (#987) redisigning the top bar
>
> First, thanks for the consideration. Comments inline but overall I think
> everything looks good.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Amos Benari wrote:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> > I like your suggestion (https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844) and have
> > some comments:
> >
> > For the hosts, I don't like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
> >
> > Hosts
> > - Managed Hosts
> > - Discovered Hosts
> > - Provisioning Setup
> > - Operating System
> > - Provisioning Templates
> > - Partition Table
> > - Hardware type
> > - Architecture
> >
> > I have doubts about the term 'Managed Hosts' because currently we are
> > referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
> > where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure,
> > unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
> >
>
> Are managed and reporting hosts shown in the same list? Is there a visual
> difference? Should those two be separated out to:
>
> Managed Hosts
> Reporting Hosts
> Discovered Hosts
>
>
> >
> > For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and moving
> > LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
> > Infrastructure
> > - Smart Proxies
> > - Compute Resources
> > - Subnets
> > - Domains
> > - Installation Media
> >
> > The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an
> > infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more
> > 'natural' to look for it.
> > removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported from
> > the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
> >
>
> I can see keeping LDAP and had debated it, but through it in there for two
> reasons (and am fine with keeping it where it is):
>
> 1) Since, as I understood it, this was LDAP backend management and
> configuration and not management of LDAP groups/users that it made sense to
> put with the other external services management
> 2) To group external services and management of those under one menu
>
> -Eric
>
>
> >
> > If my comments are acceptable I'll create a screenshot of the new
> > suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
> > Thanks,
> > Amos.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eric D Helms"
> > > To: "theforeman/foreman"
> > > Cc: "abenari"
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:57:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [foreman] Topbar5 (#987)
> > >
> > > Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
> > > consideration/discussion of a layout based on -
> > > https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after some
> > > discussions with @domcleal and Kyle Baker.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> > > https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/987#issuecomment-27321513
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "foreman-dev" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
I think I like 3. Although… I think I would have looked for Hosts ->
Provisioning in Configure -> Provisionin
– bk
···
On 10/30/2013 03:24 PM, Amos Benari wrote:
> Hi,
> I have tried the 2 level menu schema and it looked horrible.
> having 3 items in the host menu where one is folded sub-menu, look like an unneeded
> hiding of the sub-menu, so I implemented it as an unfolded sub-menu, as I have previously
> done with the users menu.
> Attached is the usual all-menu-open image (site-map3).
> As a reference I have also attached the previous suggestion (site-map2.1).
> Amos.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric D Helms"
>> To: "foreman-dev"
>> Cc: "Eric Helms"
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:58:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Topbar5 (#987) redisigning the top bar
>>
>> First, thanks for the consideration. Comments inline but overall I think
>> everything looks good.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Amos Benari wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>> I like your suggestion (https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844) and have
>>> some comments:
>>>
>>> For the hosts, I don't like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
>>>
>>> Hosts
>>> - Managed Hosts
>>> - Discovered Hosts
>>> - Provisioning Setup
>>> - Operating System
>>> - Provisioning Templates
>>> - Partition Table
>>> - Hardware type
>>> - Architecture
>>>
>>> I have doubts about the term 'Managed Hosts' because currently we are
>>> referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
>>> where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure,
>>> unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
>>>
>>
>> Are managed and reporting hosts shown in the same list? Is there a visual
>> difference? Should those two be separated out to:
>>
>> Managed Hosts
>> Reporting Hosts
>> Discovered Hosts
>>
>>
>>>
>>> For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and moving
>>> LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
>>> Infrastructure
>>> - Smart Proxies
>>> - Compute Resources
>>> - Subnets
>>> - Domains
>>> - Installation Media
>>>
>>> The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an
>>> infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more
>>> 'natural' to look for it.
>>> removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported from
>>> the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
>>>
>>
>> I can see keeping LDAP and had debated it, but through it in there for two
>> reasons (and am fine with keeping it where it is):
>>
>> 1) Since, as I understood it, this was LDAP backend management and
>> configuration and not management of LDAP groups/users that it made sense to
>> put with the other external services management
>> 2) To group external services and management of those under one menu
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If my comments are acceptable I'll create a screenshot of the new
>>> suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Eric D Helms"
>>>> To: "theforeman/foreman"
>>>> Cc: "abenari"
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:57:24 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [foreman] Topbar5 (#987)
>>>>
>>>> Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
>>>> consideration/discussion of a layout based on -
>>>> https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after some
>>>> discussions with @domcleal and Kyle Baker.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
>>>> https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/987#issuecomment-27321513
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "foreman-dev" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "foreman-dev" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
Looks good. One last thing - I would capitalize all words (e.g. Smart
Proxies, Host Groups, All Hosts).
···
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Amos Benari wrote:
Hi,
I have tried the 2 level menu schema and it looked horrible.
having 3 items in the host menu where one is folded sub-menu, look like an
unneeded
hiding of the sub-menu, so I implemented it as an unfolded sub-menu, as I
have previously
done with the users menu.
Attached is the usual all-menu-open image (site-map3).
As a reference I have also attached the previous suggestion (site-map2.1).
Amos.
For the hosts, I don’t like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
Hosts
Managed Hosts
Discovered Hosts
Provisioning Setup
Operating System
Provisioning Templates
Partition Table
Hardware type
Architecture
I have doubts about the term ‘Managed Hosts’ because currently we are
referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure,
unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
Are managed and reporting hosts shown in the same list? Is there a visual
difference? Should those two be separated out to:
Managed Hosts
Reporting Hosts
Discovered Hosts
For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and
moving
LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
Infrastructure
Smart Proxies
Compute Resources
Subnets
Domains
Installation Media
The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an
infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more
’natural’ to look for it.
removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported
from
the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
I can see keeping LDAP and had debated it, but through it in there for
two
reasons (and am fine with keeping it where it is):
Since, as I understood it, this was LDAP backend management and
configuration and not management of LDAP groups/users that it made sense
to
put with the other external services management
To group external services and management of those under one menu
-Eric
If my comments are acceptable I’ll create a screenshot of the new
suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
Thanks,
Amos.
Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
consideration/discussion of a layout based on - https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after
some
> From: "Eric D Helms" <ericdhelms@gmail.com>
> To: "foreman-dev" <foreman-dev@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:43:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Topbar5 (#987) redisigning the top bar
>
> Looks good. One last thing - I would capitalize all words (e.g. Smart
> Proxies, Host Groups, All Hosts).
There was a discussion about that when we translated the application and decision was to keep it as it is now.
If we change that would need to be application wide for all titles not just menus.
Hi,
I have tried the 2 level menu schema and it looked horrible.
having 3 items in the host menu where one is folded sub-menu, look like an
unneeded
hiding of the sub-menu, so I implemented it as an unfolded sub-menu, as I
have previously
done with the users menu.
Attached is the usual all-menu-open image (site-map3).
As a reference I have also attached the previous suggestion (site-map2.1).
Amos.
For the hosts, I don’t like the 3rd level in navigation, I suggest:
Hosts
Managed Hosts
Discovered Hosts
Provisioning Setup
Operating System
Provisioning Templates
Partition Table
Hardware type
Architecture
I have doubts about the term ‘Managed Hosts’ because currently we are
referring to managed vs. reporting hosts,
where managed refer to hosts that we can provision and configure,
unmanaged are hosts that we are only monitoring.
Are managed and reporting hosts shown in the same list? Is there a visual
difference? Should those two be separated out to:
Managed Hosts
Reporting Hosts
Discovered Hosts
For the infrastructure I suggest removing the network submenu and
moving
LDAP back to the users section in the administer:
Infrastructure
Smart Proxies
Compute Resources
Subnets
Domains
Installation Media
The reason for moving the LDAP to the users section (it is an
infrastructure) is that I think users section is where it will be more
’natural’ to look for it.
removing the networking sub menu is because subnets can be imported
from
the smart Proxy page, and domains can be associated to smart proxy.
I can see keeping LDAP and had debated it, but through it in there for
two
reasons (and am fine with keeping it where it is):
Since, as I understood it, this was LDAP backend management and
configuration and not management of LDAP groups/users that it made sense
to
put with the other external services management
To group external services and management of those under one menu
-Eric
If my comments are acceptable I’ll create a screenshot of the new
suggestion for more comments from the mailing list.
Thanks,
Amos.
Moving here since the previous PR was closed. I ask for
consideration/discussion of a layout based on - https://gist.github.com/ehelms/7140844 which was generated after
some
