Mail archive

Re: [acf] Web UI Design Principles

From: Timo Teräs <>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:13:40 +0200

On 03/02/2011 06:01 PM, Ted Trask wrote:
> I agree that things should be made consistent. Modifying interfaces and password
> were not even on my list, but I guess they are now. :)

I'm inclined to rewrite the interfaces thingy. Make it more like 'Basic
network setup' including interface, resolv.conf and hostname config.

> I forgot about /alpine-baselayout/health/modules. Yes, it is redundant and
> should be removed from one or the other. My inclination is to remove it from
> health, since it's not related to system health in any way. Actually, health is
> kind of misleading. The Network tab is redundant to Interfaces status. Modules
> is redundant to modules status. Not sure what I want to do there.

Mmm. Ok. So we might want each tab of health to corresponding module?
There's just some tabs that don't have better place, like the
memory/disk usage.

> You mention that LBU is a separate package, but it's not. /sbin/lbu is found in
> alpine-conf package. I would like to keep acf packages corresponding to the
> packages they support, so acf-alpine-conf goes with alpine-conf. As for the
> menuing, each controller gets a separate main tab. If you would like to change
> the alpine-conf/lbu controller to alpine-conf/alpine-conf and add in setup-
> script type stuff, that's fine. That way your flash stuff could be in the same
> main menu tab as lbu, but I don't see another main tab as a big deal.

Mmm. Oh. I thought lbu was separate. That's because sfic and others
were. But you're right.

There's also tricky cases like dnsmasq which provides multiple services:
DHCP, DNS, TFTP. But is just a single daemon. And Busybox which provides
many binaries.

IMHO, acf UI should be service oriented. Not Package oriented. But
granted, it gives a lot of complications to do it service oriented.

> Yes. System logging is in need of some TLC.

To be honest. I think current state is OK. It does the job and works.
But it needs small polishing here and there.

I can very clearly see the logic why certain things are done the way
they are. So there's good amount of design in the code. To me the UI is
just more 'engineers UI' than 'users UI'. I'm not even certain how it
should look like. I guess we'd need a 'usability designer' or a 'UI
designer' to figure that out for us. But I'll try to give some thought
to this.

Oh, final thing about the "create a thing" issue. I'd like if "create a
thing" and "edit a thing" are the same form. Possibly with 'new thing'
allowing setting of some more entries. Especially on UI side. My point
is that if I have list 10 things with each having 'edit' button then
embedding a 'create a thing' form does not make sense much. I'll try to
look how other Web UIs solve this.

- Timo

Received on Wed Mar 02 2011 - 18:13:40 UTC