UI > Tasks > Bug (done?)

Rethink adjust page functions in upper right / #2473

MoveBookmark

Summary

v0.08
done?
Oct 15, 2006
100%
Oct 15, 2006 / madlyr
Feb 25, 2007 / pixtur
View previous 9 versions
 

Attached files

No files uploaded

original title: "Name 'status: Delete' instead of 'Delete' for task delete"

Prio to v0.08:

in TaskView:

  • edit:
    • Task - required
    • Add Details (aka. Bug Report) - required but non intuitive
    • Move - required
  • status:
    • Delete - required
    • History - required sometimes

Suggestion:

  • move the History button into the Details box and count versions of each item. E.g. "v.12 / View Item History"


Other

Quick functions (on yellow tab) for task view have link 'status: Delete' instead plain 'Delete'.
edit:Task | Add Details | Move |  status: Delete  | History

It suggest, that we are deleting status, not task by using this fuction.

I think 'edit:Task' should be link with word 'edit'.
Now it suggest, that edit: is for all functions, not for edit Task.

Issue report

Minor
Have not tried
 

9 Comments

pixtur

Oct 16, 2006
Confirmed...
Yes, the current labeling is confusing... It came from a time, where tasks where not closed / approved / reopend by the QuickEdit form.

Maybe we should remove the "edit:" label as well?

madlyr

Oct 16, 2006
version 2
My vote for deleting edit: and status: - function names are self explanatory

binder

Oct 16, 2006
refactor quick functions
we need to rethink, what functions should be listed in the different views.

after quickedit some are of no more use, but some more could be inserted?

pixtur

Oct 16, 2006
any suggestions?

binder

Oct 17, 2006
ok... let's go!
i think, we need a complete redesign for detail-pages - and quick functions (or what it's called anyway):

We should define a NAV2 for each NAV1. At present there's not a defined NAV2 everywhere. so it would be:

navigation

bread crump

We should add a real bread crump to each page (as it is now in "taskView"). NAV2 should remain NAV2, but bread crump has to adjust the place, you're navigating at present.

history

  • the present linking is not consequent, but double and confusing, so we have two links for history in "taskView"...
  • history should instead be placed in quick functions for each item providing histories

quick functions

We need to label the functions in the same way on every page. I don't know, how to name the grouping (was "edit" and "status", which are not quite accurate), but IMHO this would be the most reasonable list:
  • add new item
  • edit item
  • (edit item wiki): as this is part of any item, this link is optional?
  • edit item details (or label ist edit bug report?)
  • move (not only in current project, but also Move tasks and files to other projects comments)
  • delete item
  • history (of item)
perhaps we could solve some issues with an AJAX-interface. So it could be for the projView
  • add
    • team member
    • new task
    • new bug
    • new effort
    • ...
With this, we saved some space...
  -

pixtur

Oct 17, 2006
On labeling and structure...
I created a page for labeling of UI Elements (We should use precise labeling for discussions ;-) : Labeling of UI Elements
  • The "Functions"-Block in Home should go away, because it's bad.
  • I am not sure, if we need Page functions groups ala "edit:" ...
  • I took a while until I understood you point on "History".
-For the projects we might call this "Timeline" or "Changes".
  • For Tasks / Items it should not be a Page function because it is not an Action but just another view. I would place it in the details box.
    • Having breadcrumbs for other elements would be cool. I already implemented this for Files.
  • missing: implement correct Breadcrumbs for Efforts and Comments
  • my suggestion for the Page functions
    • "edit" (with Item or type)
    • "move"
    • "delete" / "undelete"
    • obsolete would be:
      • "add details" - this will be done automatically by the new task edit form like taskEdit_shaded.png
      • "edit wiki" - a lot of users do not know about wikis. We shoud avoid this term. The "Edit Description" button is much more clearer.
      • "history" - see above
  • using javascript for an "add"-menu would be cool. But mind the precise labeling. "New" creates something. "Add" reuses an existing item (e.g. a Person).

What do you think?

binder

Oct 17, 2006
version 3
Antwort auf On labeling and structure...
let's clarify a bit:

I took a while until I understood you point on "History".

from pixtur


It was not double labeling, but double showing on one page. History as a term is OK for me. But it should only appear in the right context. Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. on "taskView" at present you see "History" in Pages and in Page Functions. Deleteing "History" from Pages is all I was about to do here! ;)

using javascript for an "add"-menu would be cool. But mind the precise labeling. "New" creates something. "Add" reuses an existing item (e.g. a Person).

from pixtur


you're perfectly right! I was too fast with writing! ;)

pixtur

Jan 3, 2007
I started to move add the version string to the task details block
  • Removed the "History"-Page function
  • Other page functions needs to be cleaned up


pixtur

Feb 25, 2007
seems to be done already. Closed

 
 

Comment / Update