-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Permalink anchor UI #45
Comments
I strongly think we should:
|
(for those with email: updated comment above) |
Since there is a dedicated github icon, that would lead to the issue on github, I think that would be confusing. Better to have it recenter the card, like most of the cards interaction area would be doing. Otherwise, all those changes would be great for Depviz. For reference, this is how Waffle does it:
Note that the entire card is not clickable, just those three areas. I think that's a mistake. |
Entire cards are draggable which is probably why they are not clickable. |
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:29:05PM -0800, Juan Benet wrote:
- I (and others) would expect the "link circle" icon to copy a link
to depviz centered on that issue to clipboard (but not recenter)
Is there an alternative symbol you'd prefer? Maybe ⚓ (U+2693 ANCHOR)?
📌 (U+1F4CC PUSHPIN)? # (U+0023 NUMBER SIGN)?
Or is the only option for “center on this card and update the window
location” the card background? “Hover” is less accessible on touch
UIs, so I'd rather not have too much implicit behavior like “the whole
card does …”. But we can always document it on the landing page if we
do need to make the whole card do something.
|
No, that would be two different actions, look at how Trello handles having both without problems for example.
For copy, there is a establish icon, the holy pasteboard icon, emoji: 📋 unicode:
In general, I think we should have the idea that if something becomes so complex without it's actually being real complex (think rocket science), we should make the features and actions easy enough to be self-describing. |
agreed. though i think clicking/touching through on the card is super obvious. it's the first thing people try. |
We currently don't walk dependencies for closed issues, because they're not related to future progress. However, the completed-issue graph is useful for historical context, and Juan is interested in walking that graph [1]. To make this straightforward, we probably want a way to configure a hop-depth from a current node. But the current UI lacks a "current node" concept and we haven't settled on a UI for selecting nodes [2,3]. In the meantime, this patch gives users a way for users to drill down into the dependencies of any closed issue by clicking on its dependencies indicator. unwalkedDependencies is currently a bit sloppy, since it should be false if all of the parents have already been walked. The current implementation is good enough for a first pass though. [1]: jbenet#13 (comment) [2]: jbenet#30 [3]: jbenet#45
We currently don't walk dependencies for closed issues, because they're not related to future progress. However, the completed-issue graph is useful for historical context, and Juan is interested in walking that graph [1]. To make this straightforward, we probably want a way to configure a hop-depth from a current node. But the current UI lacks a "current node" concept and we haven't settled on a UI for selecting nodes [2,3]. In the meantime, this patch gives users a way for users to drill down into the dependencies of any closed issue by clicking on its dependencies indicator. unwalkedDependencies is currently a bit sloppy, since it should be false if all of the parents have already been walked. The current implementation is good enough for a first pass though. [1]: jbenet#13 (comment) [2]: jbenet#30 [3]: jbenet#45
The “navigate by clicking on nodes” idea has come up a few times (#2, #17, #30), but the current implementation is based on dragging the
viewBox
around. As I mentioned in #17, cards are a bit crowded to make the background that click-to-center target. #30 proposed using the issue title, but I don't think that's particularly intuitive. Stealing a bit of space by following the dep-indicator pattern with an explicit link symbol gives us something like this:That starts to look a bit warty, but it is fairly clear. You could also inline the link:
but having it float inside the card makes it feel like issue information, and less like part of the graph UI.
I'm leaning towards the warty lower-left circle, but would be happy to switch to something else if someone has a cleaner idea :).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: