This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 12, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
Clarify the notion of steps #25
Comments
We should probably re-think the extent of customizability on the first couple of pages (vcs, building, qa, packaging). Currently a user:
Maybe we should limit the user-interaction on those first pages to choosing from popular tools, or specifying that a custom command is used and only provide a customization UI on the software supply chain page? |
What would happen if we just asked the user to run a command (to start a
shell we capture things from) and then commit, build, test, package, etc.
their software? Would this be easier?
…On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:56 PM, lukpueh ***@***.***> wrote:
We should probably re-think the extent of customizability on the first
couple of pages (*vcs, building, qa, packaging*).
Currently a user:
1. chooses from a set of popular tools in the option grid (*custom
command* is one of the choices), then
2. customizes the tool command inside the option grid (the form
expands on click), then
3. either clicks "*add and continue on next page*" or *"add and
continue on this page"*, (which btw. was very confusing for our beta
testers), then
4. in case the user stays, the steps can be further customized and
re-ordered in the *workflow* section below the option grid, and
5. eventually the user can refine or completely change all the
previously entered information on the *software supply chain* page
Maybe we should limit the user-interaction on those first pages to
choosing from popular tools, or specifying that a custom command is used
and only provide a customization UI on the *software supply chain* page?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#25 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA0XD6vK5SkM167gnzHi4M_0eA9XfYEGks5siAk5gaJpZM4PWYvc>
.
|
Do you mean instead of the web wizard? Or as part of it? |
It was noted by to different users that the |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
We have to clarify what the supply chain graph should look like and which steps are actually layout-worthy. Here are some question that arose during user testing:
cd <dir>
a supply chain step?cd <dir>
is a step, then it should be a “non-modifying step”?cd <dir>
is a "non-modifying step" then it appears as a parallel activity in the D3 graph, which is really confusing;
or&&
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: