[Patternfly] Forms/ widget requirement

[Malini Rao]

Not disagreeing with either of you on questioning a requirement. I think we should NOT assume every thing as a de facto requirement to be accommodated in the pattern. However, I think this discussion highlights a process question - Do responses to call for pattern requirements from Patternfly need to be validated BEFORE they are reported to Patternfly or does the Patternfly team do that? 

At this time, I am only highlighting current usage of the pattern or pattern variant in Ovirt as-is for consideration (Many of these have not necessarily passed through any UX review before). My understanding is that as long as we make the team working on a pattern aware of current forms of use, there will be an analysis of these and a determination will be made on which of these are true requirements worth 'standardizing' with consistent interaction pattern. This is the analysis that is reviewed early in the requirements phase. IMHO, in the spirit of encouraging max response from everyone and not having siloed analysis and too much early filtering, I think it is almost better for people to just pump in examples that they think applies and a qualified and interested team can then compare and contrast and come up with a determination about moving forward with it or letting the person who reported it know that they should consider other ways to deal with the requirement or treat it as a unique use case. In fact, bad examples can potentially inform some guidelines that can be added to the pattern in terms of how NOT to use it which is just as valuable for the pattern consumer.

I am willing to help in any analysis that will need to be done in the form of product specific follow-ups or across product comparisons for this pattern or any other. 

Thanks
Malini




----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Blanchard" <lsurette at redhat.com>
To: "Robb Hamilton" <rhamilto at redhat.com>
Cc: "Malini Rao" <mrao at redhat.com>, patternfly at redhat.com, "Brian Dellascio" <bdellasc at redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:13:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Patternfly] Forms/ widget requirement


On Apr 10, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Robb Hamilton <rhamilto at redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Malini Rao <mrao at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> ok. Well, it is something to consider since we have an existing requirement.
> 
> i think the counterpoint is that if you need more than a single line you’re in danger of verbosity.  less is more in this context as you should be able to readily identify a selection based on it’s label alone.  if you can’t, a poor label has been chosen for the selection (see the namespacing is important argument).  :)  

This makes me think of something that Joe and I have experienced when looking at how our current applications are using tables. There are certain uses of tables that just don’t necessarily make sense in our applications. I think we need to question whether the use of tables in these cases is the right thing to do rather than take these as requirements for the table pattern. I’m not saying this is the exact case here with OVirt and this form example, but I think it’s a good idea to question why is it designed this way? How would we design it if we started from scratch with the requirements? And then take this requirement to the form team.

My thoughts,
Liz


> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robb Hamilton" <rhamilto at redhat.com>
>> To: "Malini Rao" <mrao at redhat.com>
>> Cc: patternfly at redhat.com, "Brian Dellascio" <bdellasc at redhat.com>, "Kyle Baker" <kybaker at redhat.com>, "Matt Reid" <mreid at redhat.com>, "Sj Clark" <sclark at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:40:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: Forms/ widget requirement
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Malini Rao <mrao at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Cool! Can the supplementary info be multi-line too?
>> 
>> it *could* be, but the implementation is currently single line.
>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Robb Hamilton" <rhamilto at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Malini Rao" <mrao at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: patternfly at redhat.com, "Brian Dellascio" <bdellasc at redhat.com>, "Kyle Baker" <kybaker at redhat.com>, "Matt Reid" <mreid at redhat.com>, "Sj Clark" <sclark at redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:28:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Forms/ widget requirement
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Malini Rao <mrao at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, 
>>>> 
>>>> In Ovirt, we have the need for rich dropdowns where another piece of information ( single or multi-line) is concatenated with the main drop down value. The need here is that the user needs a little more information AT THE TIME of making a selection in the dropdown in order for it to be a meaningful selection. For e.g, it could be a drop down with Host IDs that were discovered and the IDs may make no sense without a brief description of what type of host it is.
>>>> 
>>>> With the right interaction details and visual design, this may be a useful addition to the patternfly widget library and forms pattern.
>>> 
>>> the widget we’re using for multi-selects (Bootstrap-select [1]) supports this sort of supplementary data (see attached screenshot or https://www.patternfly.org/wp-content/uploads/patternfly/tests/bootstrap-select.html).  it’s worth noting that Bootstrap-select supports both single and multi select, so essentially we already have this functionality in patternfly, we just don’t highlight it.  that’s easy enough to change.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [image/png:Screen Shot 2014-04-10 at 10.24.05 AM.PNG]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] http://silviomoreto.github.io/bootstrap-select/
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patternfly mailing list
> Patternfly at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/patternfly