[aerogear-dev] UPS: Console - Visibility issues

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Andres Galante <agalante at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Matthias and Lukas,
>
> During the user research time I've learn that there are almost none use
> case where the user uses this information stand alone. The user would just
> copy and paste the code snippet.
>

well, that does not always work (e.g. sligthly different structure of code).
Even our own Android HelloWorld Demo is not able to use the snippets and
paste them in (due to different code structure - which is good).

Having them visible give a bit more appreciation to these IDs (or call em
API keys), so it's easy to get the desired info quickly




>
> We use it a lot because we test it and set it up a bunch of times UPS. We
> already have the code set up and we end up knowing where to look for the
> data. Luke bring this same issue to me during Summit.
>
> Let me think of a good way to highlight that information to make the
> expert user life easier.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas at fryc.eu> wrote:
>
>> Basically it is something that we "agreed on" (or rather didn't catch)
>> during mockup reviews and that never changed from that time.
>>
>> @Andres: did it have some reason to hide the details?
>>
>> I'm all for exposing it more visibly.
>>
>> st 24. 6. 2015 v 17:21 odesílatel Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
>> napsal:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> on our old design the PushApplicationID/MasterSecret was very good to
>>> notice:
>>>
>>> https://aerogear.org/docs/unifiedpush/ups_userguide//img/applications_variant.png
>>>
>>> Now it's a bit more hidden (one has to click on the "Sender API" tab of
>>> the Application).
>>>
>>> Similar w/ the VariantID/Secret pair, IMO it is also a bit hidden, since
>>> this is only visible in the source snippets for the variant.
>>>
>>> They used to be a bit more present:
>>>
>>> https://aerogear.org/docs/unifiedpush/ups_userguide//img/applications_variant_details.png
>>>
>>> Since I find that suboptimal, I am wondering if that's done for a good
>>> reason, or if something (in a future version?) should be changed ?
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>



-- 
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/20150629/ea50906d/attachment-0001.html