[aerogear-dev] Unified Push Server user management questions

[Matthias Wessendorf]

thanks Luke!



On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Lucas Holmquist wrote:

>
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'matzew at apache.org');>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Lucas Holmquist wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Hylke Bons <hbons at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hello,
>>
>> I've updated the wireframes with the points raised, you can find it here:
>> https://raw.github.com/hbons/aerogear-design/master/aerogear_unified_push_server_admin_ui.png
>>
>> I'll address your feedback inline.
>>
>> On 06/06/2013 01:38, Deepali Khushraj wrote:
>>
>> * It seems from the designs that the user can add only a single
>> OS-specific variant per app. For example, I can create "Mobile HR" app with
>> a single "HR iOS" variant,  but not two variants like "HR iPad" and "HR
>> iPhone free". I believe Matthias' lexicon states such multiple variants are
>> possible per app. .
>>
>>
>>  I think the way you've done is fine. However, if we choose this path
>> then, I think, we need to update the specification and ensure the REST API
>> won't allow multiple OS-specific variants per app, otherwise, they can't be
>> shown in the UI.
>>
>>   I forgot a to add this usecase. This can now be done in the "Variants"
>> tab.
>>
>>
>> i was looking at this again and a question popped into my head.  Doesn't
>> each variant need there own certificate/google key.
>>
>> So, for example, we have an "HR App",  this app has 3 variants
>> 1. free version
>> 2. paid version
>>  3. some other really cool version
>>
>> i'm assuming that should be 3 different certs/keys ( for development,
>> another set for prod ). i'm not sure the wireframes represent this correctly
>>
>
>
> yes. the spec is indicating that!
> Does the UI lead to confusion?
>
>
> In it's current wireframe form yes.
>
> But with this confirmation.  we should be good going forward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   * Apple's Push network has prod and dev environment options, a flag
> would be useful.
>
>
> Two certificate files can now be provided: one for production and one for
> development. Any of the two can be used by mobile apps whether they're
> deployed or for debugging purposes.
>
>   * The terms "Instance" and "Variant" will be unfamiliar terminologies
> to a new user. A help icon on the screen or just some text explaining the
> meanings of these terms to new comers would be helpful
>
>  * Terminology suggestion:
>  Instance -> "Active user instances" or just "User instances"
>
>   I've changed this to "Mobile Instances" for now, but we can discuss
> this.
>
>
>   * I found the name "Variants and Push Networks" confusing. I would
> suggest we use one :)
>
>
> Push Networks it is.
>
>   * I noticed you added links to download client SDKs, which is great. I
> think a link to the Sender REST API spec would be useful too.
>
>   I think this is something we need to fix on the aerogear.org website
> itself. There should be easy access from the downloads to the API as a
> "next step".
>
>
>  * I found our iOS  tutorial to be really helpful. It got the user up and
> running really quickly. This is something I struggled with Urban Airship
> and other services. Linking ours to the console could be a real value add
> to first-time users
>
>
>
>
>  * We need to check the security aspect of showing end-user emails in the
> instances tab to the developers of the app.
>
>   Like mentioned by Matthias, this can be anything, not just email
> addressses. It depends on how the developer sets the system up.
>
>  * Also, if an
>
>

-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130626/fe62e390/attachment.html