inline edit specifications question
a.cheetham at utoronto.ca
Tue Aug 12 13:21:26 UTC 2008
On 11-Aug-08, at 5:33 PM, Allison Bloodworth wrote:
> ... I just made an effort to fix that that by pulling them into both
> the Inline Edit main page and the Inline Edit Specification page as
> excerpts from the storyboard pages. If we stayed with this format,
> it would be easier for us to keep things consistent across the
> different pages.
I think it makes sense to have a single, definite set of images for a
storyboard/scenario. Other pages that might want to reference the
images could do just that (i.e. use a link to the storyboard) or
excerpt a sinble image, as you've done in some cases.
The only case where this wouldn't work is if there is a need for
fundamentally different images, but I'm not sure where this might
occur? If a storyboard spells out all of the relevant interactions for
a given scenario, then I'm not sure there'd be a need for different
images for the same scenario?
> However, the downside is that you can only excerpt one section of a
> page at a time, so I couldn't excerpt multiple images (which some of
> the components on the Specification page did have before).
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The storyboards are
available. Links to the page can be used wherever appropriate.
Excerpting a single descriptive image onto a summary page should be
adequate. I find having too many images in too many places is actually
a bit overwhelming. It's not clear at first glance if the images are
the same as the ones on the storyboard page, or different. If I (as a
developer) know that the storyboard page is the definitive source, I'm
happy to go look at that page. I (personally) don't need copies of the
images on other pages too.
I can't speak for other developers - anyone else want to voice an
> the wireframes ... could be used ...:
> 1) to represent (at a high level) the different types of inline edit
> components we expect to build (most likely with just a single
> image). They would just provide a quick visual on what these
> components are, and the detail for building them would be found on
> the storyboard page (linked next to them).
This makes sense - an excerpt of a single image, to give a quick sense
of the component.
> 2) to show all possible screens and interactions which the
> developers may encounter. In this case, I believe we'd pull in quite
> a few more of the images/wireframe (maybe 1/3 - 1/2?) from the
> storyboards onto the Specification page.
I think this is unnecessary. The images are there on the storyboard.
Essentially, my take (as a developer) is that the storyboards
themselves are a part of the specification. I'd be just fine if the
specification page simply linked to the relevant storyboard. It might
actually make the specification page easier to follow.
Again, I can't speak for other developers - anyone else want to chime
Anastasia Cheetham a.cheetham at utoronto.ca
Software Designer, Fluid Project http://fluidproject.org
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre / University of Toronto
More information about the fluid-work