#633 fedora gooey karma
Opened 5 months ago by imzubin. Modified 2 months ago

the project has been un-maintained for a while now I've decided to take it over again would like to start working on it. I've created a rough mockup of the UI and would want it to be verified by fedora design team before i start working on it.
Fedora_gooey_karma-mockup.jpg
I would like to know about the usable fonts
and looking for any changes to be made in the mockup
thank you


@imzubin Hey, this is showing the available packages tab, right? What is shown under installed pacakges? I'm guessing it would only show test packages that are already installed on the system?

@imzubin this is my first attempt - I looked at the KDE HIG as well as Bodhi's layout and metadata for submitting karma, so that the design would be consistent with both. It's my understanding that the KDE HIG dictates Noto Sans as the font, however, I do not know if Fedora KDE overrides that with the default Fedora font Cantarell and am waiting for some more information about that from the KDE SIG.

gooeykarma-mockup1.png

Questions I still have:

Some notes for the next pass:

okay, the mockup looks awesome.
1. the installed packages would be showing the packages that have been already installed on the machine, thinking about it now I think that we don't really need multiple tabs for that, a simple checkbox in the dropdown should be able to do the job.
2. yeah, it's kinda alternative of fedora easy karma as it would allow users to look at the installed packages and packages that they can install, I'll be adding installing and uninstalling feature as well.
3. yes, it was supposed to be the same thing,

instead of showing all the comments we can simply add a link to comments.

i think the different test cases have different karmas, I added it so we can keep a count on the voted karmas.

@imzubin

  • Are the packages in question test packages only?
  • If the links in tflink's mockup point to wiki test cases... should we be linking to wiki test cases here too?
  • I think just having the comments available via a link (that opens up the page in the browser on bodhi?) just obfuscates them and isn't worth doing. Are the comments that useless?
  • Besides ease of test package installation, is there any other compelling reason for someone to use this rather than use the Bodhi web interface directly?
  • How does installed vs. available packages figure into the tester's workflow? My guesses, tell me if I'm wrong:
    • Installed" packages are the packages that you're actively testing. (How long do you take to test them?) Once you are done testing them, you don't need them in this list and they cause clutter, right, making it harder to see the set of packages you're testing? Are you meant to only test one package at a time or is it ok to test multiple at once? Maybe we can introduce a state to installed packages... once you've submitted test feedback, it greys out and goes to a different "Tested" or "Archive" list? It should also let you remove the test packages from your system right?
    • Available packages is where you find things to test. Maybe we need different metadata on that screen to help testers find the packages that would be the highest priority (e.g. critical path, security, sitting in the system the longest) to test first?
    • Do testers 'own' a certain set of packages? If so, it might be nice to have a user profile where the user can store what packages they care about the most to float those to the top?
  • yeah all packages listed are from bodhi
  • actually, @sumantrom should we?
  • not really but downloading all the comments and making the UI crammed up is not what i would like, maybe a mockup with comments would help deciding.
  • and having a curated list of installed packages listed by user preferences, right now i cant think of any but comparing it to fedora easy karma having a nice GUI would be much better.
  • installed and active packages
    • yes that would be a great idea to do so. we can have another checkbox for that as well. or we can simply have another list but yeah we'll integrate that in some way, (another mockup i guess.)
    • absolutely
    • well yeah programmer may test his own packages, but lets hold that functionality for next version.

@sumantrom please look into the thread and correct us if needed.

so, i had a word with @sumantrom, and we decided that

  1. this package is not for installation and un-installation of packages in the testers machine, this package will only allow to post karmas for the test packages.
  2. We'll have to link the testcases to the wiki pages, testcase description as a link would be nice for that functionality.
  3. comparing it to bodhi website, in case of internet issues the package would store the karmas and post it when the connection is available
  4. user doesn't need to know what another user rates the package and comments on it, so no we don't need to include comments

rest is fine.

Hey Zubin, everything else looks good. Thanks a lot Mo for those beautiful
designs!! :)

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 17:37 Zubin choudhary pagure@pagure.io wrote:

imzubin added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
so, i had a word with @sumantrom, and we decided that

  1. this package is not for installation and un-installation of packages in
    the testers machine, this package will only allow to post karmas for the
    test packages.
  2. We'll have to link the testcases to the wiki pages, testcase
    description as a link would be nice for that functionality.
  3. comparing it to bodhi website, in case of internet issues the package
    would store the karmas and post it when the connection is available
  4. user doesn't need to know what another user rates the package and
    comments on it, so no we don't need to include comments

rest is fine.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/design/issue/633

Metadata Update from @duffy:
- Issue tagged with: triaged

4 months ago

Metadata Update from @imzubin:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

4 months ago

hey,
sorry for reopening the issue again, but after getting a feedback on the project repo, we do have a couple of changes in the mock-up.

https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/fedora-gooey-karma/issue/7

additions:
related packages (depended packages)
comments
Removal :
available packages tab.
packages from previous fedora versions

can you please provide a revised mock-up.
thank you.

Metadata Update from @imzubin:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

4 months ago

@imzubin this totally fell off my radar, my deep apologies! is an updated mockup still useful at this point?

not really,
I'm not being able to replicate a lot of details in Qt framework anyway.

On Tue, 16 Jul, 2019, 11:41 PM M=C3=A1ir=C3=ADn Duffy, pagure@pagure.io w=
rote:

duffy added a new comment to an issue you are following:
@imzubin this totally fell off my radar, my deep apologies! is an updated mockup still useful at this point?

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/design/issue/633

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Attachments 2