-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
Create Integration - naming the integration and the publish button #45
Comments
Thanks a lot for this detailed explorations. Some comments on the approaches:
Reconsidering the design (and after filling out this part for maybe 2000 times while testing stuff), I actually would prefer the first approach and omit the textbox above the vertical integration definition. Just a read-only label for the name there. I think this text box adds more confusion than it helps because you still have to enter the name at some point in the flow, so why not let it be guided all the time. I don't see any benefit of the textbox (as I never filled it out in advance). |
Yeah, name generation based on the start/end connection, though to be honest this could get quite wordy, i.e. Though personally I like docker generated names -> https://frightanic.com/computers/docker-default-container-names/ In either case with generated names the user should always have the option to provide their own. I think I'm onboard with either removing or re-working the name input field above the flow view, that seems to be a constant source of confusion. |
Not gonna sugarcoat it - I hate naming the integration first. Seems much more natural (at least to me) to create my integration and then give it a name. Seems like the only options while creating an integration should be Save and Publish. Save requires a name, so it feels totally normal to go to the naming screen. If the user doesn't want to publish at that point, they just return to the editor or the dashboard depending on what they want to do next. Publish should only be visible for a saved integration, IMO. Another possibility is to not allow publish from the integration editor at all and only have it visible on the integration detail page. Haven't really thought that through completely, but figured I'd throw it out for discussion. |
I don't see BTW how this solves the problem of what page these buttons show up on to be honest. If the first thing the user sees is Are these buttons really as confusing as we're making them out to be? :-) |
+1
+1 too, I like this approach, I kinda feel like actual deployment should be an intentional thing vs. something that happens as a result of a save but that might just be me. |
Just want to throw it out here for discussion. By no mean I'm showing the final design. But the below screenshot shows the concept of not showing integration description (the text box) and expanding the integration name field across both the left and right panes (like Google doc). If users don't have a name for the integration by the time they click "publish", then we show the naming page?
This could work. But then it also requires much more thinking on the integration details page. |
Perhaps one approach would to disable out the Publish button until the user names the integration and have the "Enter integration name..." text be "To publish set the name of the integration here..."? I think linking those two (similar to the last screenshot) could help. I also like @gashcrumb's suggestion of auto-creating integration names. |
We could also auto name to "Unnamed 1", "Unnamed 2". Just like when you create a new File on your Desktop. And just make it easy for users to rename stuff if they don't like those names. I like the idea of controlling the naming and publishing in the Integration Overview page. |
Question1: do we want to push a user to name the integration?
I vote for default names. Question2: how to offer an integration name change during the creation? The user shouldn't be forced to set the name if he don't want to. He should be only offered to do this as the first action as @dongniwang mentioned (for him to know he can do it at all) And then whenever he wants to (that means having the naming page accessible through a link or a button at any time of creating the integration) |
Reading over the comments, a couple of thoughts.
So finally, I think that we could resolve this with a simple change as follows: |
Met with @sjcox-rh and @amysueg and had a discussion about the naming integration flow and the behaviors of the publish button.
Currently, naming the integration is the "last step" before users can "publish" an integration. The "publish" button also appears twice in the create an integration flow, which creates confusion. The goal is to make sure the UI provides the context sensitive feedback and correct information so users can take appropriate actions.
Here are the solutions we are proposing:
Make naming the integration the first step of the create integration flow. So the flow will become:
Click Create Integration button (on dashboard or integration list page) -> Give integration a name -> Choose Start Connection -> Choose End Connection -> (Add Step/Connection) -> Publish Integration
If we follow this approach, there will be only one "Publish" button at the end of the flow. And clicking on the "Publish" button will publish the integration right away.
For this approach, we suggest to change the first "Publish" to "Next", and add a short description on the Name Integration page to inform users why they need to give a name to the integration.
Alternatively, very long time ago, there was a discussion about auto-generating integration names for users. Not sure if this is still feasible? Do you remember this conversation? @gashcrumb
cc: @zregvart @akieling @rhuss
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: