[Sugar-devel] buddy tags

[Gary C Martin]

Hi Eben,

On 4 Aug 2009, at 02:19, Eben Eliason wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Gary C Martin<gary at garycmartin.com>  
> wrote:
>> On 2 Aug 2009, at 15:00, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gary (and others),
>>>
>>> what was decided about buddy tagging?
>>
>> No one else has commented yet :-(
>
> I had a brief conversation with Christian about this recently. He said
> he'd try to catch up on the thread and maybe give a few comments.

Fab, that would be great!

>>> Were you interested in working on it?
>>
>> Yes, I've just added some new mock-ups (keeping them as simple/ 
>> achievable as
>> possible), so maybe someone else can take a look at them and  
>> provide some
>> feedback:
>>
>>        http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Proposals/Buddy_Tags
>
> I think the settings panel looks like a good start. I wonder if we
> should stick with "tags" here, or if it would be worth calling this a
> "description" or "things I like" or something similar.

Yea, I was playing safe with the input box name. I wanted to avoid  
suggesting folks type in a natural language sentence or paragraph. If  
we had tokenised text field support, life here would be easier (and  
else where we want folks to use tags) ;-)

   http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Human_Interface_Guidelines/The_Sugar_Interface#Tokenized_Text_Fields

> The palette, on the other hand, doesn't work as you've mocked it up.
> The primary palette is a fixed height, and only supports single line
> primary and secondary titles. I think the tags/description belong in
> the secondary palette instead. See
> [http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Design_Team/Designs/Activity_Management#03 
> ]
> for a related sketch. We've abandoned the gray background, and we
> don't have avatars or structured content as shown here, but I think we
> could add a "section" to the secondary palette containing this extra
> info. It would expand, but the primary palette would always be a fixed
> size.

Thanks. I didn't know that. I will amend my mock-ups, should work just  
as well with that change.

> It might also be nice to have the ability to have a button in one's
> own palette that links directly to the "about me" section of settings
> to change the info. This will also improve discoverability. The
> ability to open the settings to a specific section (and even anchored
> subsection, perhaps) is something we've wanted to expose in many
> places. It might be a nice task for someone looking for a nice
> self-contained feature to build.

On the fence about this one, I find one's own palette is getting a  
little to long already (My Settings, Logout, Restart, Shutdown,  
Register).

Hmmm, random thought. Should clicking on your buddy icon open "My  
Settings" as the default operation? Right now it's just a pretty  
picture with a palette hanging off it. That way you'd just click your  
buddy icon and pick "About Me", avoiding all those nasty techie strings.

>> Though I'm not sure I have the stamina to get past your code  
>> reviews for any
>> original coding. It's hard enough to get a bug fix r+ accepted when  
>> making a
>> minimal tweak to existing code! ;-)
>>
>>> From the last Sugar releases tags are broadcasted along the rest of
>>> the buddy info when using gabble. Was it decided that we also needed
>>> tags in Salut for 0.86? Or it could come in a later stage?
>>
>>
>> Not knowing the amount of work involved I can't really make a call.  
>> My last
>> comment is best I can make:
>>
>> "Well ejabberd was definitely the first to have solved as it  
>> represents a
>> solution for a more dispersed community, less likely to know about  
>> the
>> others. But having both [gabble + salut] would obviously be much more
>> consistent.– If you told me 'journal grid view' won't happen, or  
>> tool bar
>> 'stop' always visible won't happen, or 'ad-hoc wirless networks'  
>> won't
>> happen, or 'tags under Journal titles' won't happen, or 'Metacity  
>> layering
>> issue will persist',– then I'd say let salut slip to 0.88."
>
> I agree. I think I'd sooner have basic buddy self-tagging working in
> both scenarios than have tagging of others (pseudo groups) in one or
> the other, though.

+1

>> I was also hoping to get some feedback on the first boot experience  
>> if
>> anyone has a strong opinion:
>>
>> "I really do like the simple 'first' boot experience, pick colours,  
>> enter
>> name, and your are done! Great! What do folks think about exposing an
>> optional self tag prompt at this point? Wording is going to be  
>> tough, and
>> would likely need some prompting example tags. As a challenge, feel  
>> free to
>> reply with some single word tag lists you might assign to  
>> yourself..."
>
> I'm not sure it's necessary to do this. the more streamlined this
> process is (and the less description/guidance needed) the better. I
> think that adding this info could be part of a first day lesson, if
> it's something that instructors wanted to emphasize.

+1 agreed, I just wanted to be sure we weren't missing a trick here.

Regards,
--Gary