Re: [jopr-dev] request for comments - timeline view

1. 1280x1024 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 28.65% 2. 1024x768 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 17.12% 3. 1680x1050 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 15.63% 4. 1280x800 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 13.29% 5. 1440x900 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 8.25% 6. 1920x1200 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 5.61% 7. 1400x1050 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 4.12% 8. 1600x1200 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 2.48% 9. 1152x864 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 1.64% 10. 1280x768 <https://www.google.com/analytics/reporting/resolutions?id=8816868&pdr... 1.09% Stats from our docs server Heiko W.Rupp wrote: > > Am 15.02.2009 um 21:15 schrieb Joseph Marques: >> the dual monitors i do my primary development on are standard aspect >> ratio (though, my resolution is 1600x1200). yes, there are a > > We should cater for people with 1280 px in screen width. The > following is from the web server of one of my domains: > 1280*x makes 45% of all views and 1024*x makes for another 23%. > > 1280x800 29.9 % > 1024x768 23.5 % > 1280x1024 15.9 % > 1440x900 8.2 % > 1680x1050 7 % > Others 15.2 % > > One may estimate that IT ops have the big screens, but we should not > count on it. > > >> lot of tabs, but i'm less worried about the quantity of data shown >> than i am about the placement of data and how intuitive things > > This lots of tabs worries me. And the lots of meicoa icons > >> would be to find. case in point: microsoft word is a "busy" >> application with it's ten or so default menus, and the 40 or so >> icons on the two default toolbars, but having access to all of those >> things at a glance because of they properly named and have somewhat >> intuitive icons to identity what they do helps tremendously. i >> could see us in the future perhaps even replacing the text of >> "monitor", > > On the other hand, there are many people out there, that especially > see Word as the prime example of complete > feature overload. > >> "events", "configuration", "operations", "alerts", "content" with >> more easily recognizable icons altogether (or maybe that would be a >> user option [icon+text vs. icon-only vs. text-only]). > > Icon only is bad. There are a few standard icons (e.g. disk symbol to > save), but otherwise most of time the same icon > has three different meanings in two programs. > >>> But - if we are to add a new tab, I do like the idea of a summary >>> tab. That should probably be the landing tab when selecting a new >>> resource from the Browse Resources (or any link when moving from a >>> page without a resource in context). >> i would agree, it would be an ideal place to place links that don't >> explicitly navigate to one of the other tabs via the "mica" icons. > > Yes indeed. > > Adding the display timerange there would allow to see historic data. > RHQ-1496 has code to dynamically load availability > data and to autorefresh the timeline, so that users could change the > range and a refresh of the timeline would show the > right stuff. > Simile also has a tiemeplot library, that is timeline + graphs, so > one could even put some indicator charts in it. > > Heiko > _______________________________________________ jopr-dev mailing list jopr-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jopr-dev