OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp-wsia message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] Handling "APPLY", "OK", "CANCEL" and "DONE"

     I wonder if I have created some confusion.  I am not suggesting that we either define control L/F or navigational semantics that provides uniformity accross consumers.  I am sugesting we define mechanisms so that portlet which desire to play by the rules can conveniently implement the consumers control L/F and navigational semantics.  I.e. we need ways in which portlet developers can get at this information/express it.  We don't need to define a common semantic between portals.

On control L/F I am hoping we can get anway with something simple -- Is it possible to define a CSS which represents the "APPLY, "OK", "CANCEL" buttons as a single set?  In this CSS a developer would merely set the APPLY url, OK url, and Cancel url.  The CSS class would take care of ordering these, naming these, and potentially even excluding unneeded ones.  If such a thing is doable then we could consider only doing the one or providng a separate CSS class for situations where a single button "DONE/Cancel/back" would be suitable.  Again, in this CSS the developer would only provide the URL.  The CSS class would define the rest.

On the navigational semantics, the problem we have in our protocol today is that there is no way for a session-less portlet to do anything but hardcode its navigational semantics.  I believe this is a big oversight in our specification -- paticularly when its fairly easy to resolve by merely asking the portal to pass information in the request.  Since we require the portlet to deal with impelmenting portal semantics "OK", "CANCEL", etc our protocol should be complete enough so it can do its job.  Therefore I don't see how this can wait to 1.1 -- as there is no way a hardcoded portlet will fit into a future design without rewrite.

Eilon Reshef wrote:
I would like to second that. I also think that button behavior falls under
application semantics and the less we get into those muddy waters the better
we are, even if some consistency is sacrificed. If people want to develop
bad applications (=portlets) so be it, and we can always add more detailed
_guidelines_ in the next version.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 18:24
To: wsrp-wsia
Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] Handling "APPLY", "OK", "CANCEL" and "DONE"

I agree that it is desireable to have a common look&feel (and I would say
it's more the "look" than the "feel"). Therfor I would say we should define
a set of CSS classes with common buttons defined as we already discussed. We
need to figure out this set of buttons. Folks with CSS knowledge should try
to bring up a proposal here. Maybe Yossi's example is a good starting point.
It would be also nice to have the button labels localized, but need to make
sure that these is consistent with the markup generated (i.e. english markup
-> english buttons). Also we need to define a fallback behaviour if markup
and buttons locales do not overlap. Also overrides for default text should
be possible?

However I'm not sure about the common navigational semantics. In an ideal
world all UIs would behave consistently. But I think it is pretty hard to
agree on a common behaviour, i.e. semantic definitions for each such button
which satisfies the whole bunch of possible applications. That's why JSR
folks a having a hard time on this, as far as I understood. If you look at
UI's like Windows or KDE, etc. They provide the user with a common look but
every application is free to decide on the semantics on button-actions
(close dialog, display information, etc.) We don't really know what
applications want to code, right? For example a portlet may have different
setup pages in EDIT mode and a "OK" button leads the user back to page one
of EDIT mode for instance - a mode change to "VIEW" wouldn't be the
behaviour the portlet wants. Or assume a wizard like dialog in EDIT mode,
where one OK on one page triggers the portlet to enter yet another EDIT page
depending on the input of the first page. Therefor I wouldn't consider this
part as a "must address" in the 1.0 timeframe. The DONE behaviour you
described could always be coded by the portlet. And I agree there might be
different flavours how portlet application handle this, but...

Concerning your proposal in MUST requirements, look and feel section 2: Do
you propose that the portal should provide the buttons (which, number of
them etc.)? I think the only one knows its semantics is the portlet itself,
so the portlet should request the portal to render the buttons it requests
(using CSS).

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Jacob ______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com

|         |           Alejandro        |
|         |           Abdelnur         |
|         |           <alejandro.abdeln|
|         |           ur@sun.com>      |
|         |                            |
|         |           03/14/2003 02:38 |
|         |           AM               |
  |       To:
  |       cc:       wsrp-wsia <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>
  |       Subject:  Re: [wsrp-wsia] Handling "APPLY", "OK", "CANCEL" and

Some questions/comments embedded.


Michael Freedman wrote:
          A long time ago we decided that the portlet would be responsible
      for rendering/managing the buttons commonly displayed in modal MODEs.
      For example the portlet renders the "APPLY", "OK", "CANCEL" What do
you mean by modal MODEs?
      button in Edit Mode.  Likewise the portlet renders the "DONE" button
      in Help mode.  Unfortunately, our specification doesn't define how a
      portlet can accomplish this in ways that meet [what I consider] basic
      requirements.  Namely, the specification doesn't define a uniform way
      for portlets to recognize what Mode the portlet should return to when
      "OK", "CANCEL", or "DONE" are invoked.  Also the specification
      doesn't define a uniform way for portlets to use controls/labels that
      are consistent with the portal/consumer they are running in.  I feel
      we must address these deficiencies in 1.0.
           These are the basic requirements I believe we must meet:
            Requirements related to managing navigation:
            MUST requirements:
            1) The specification must describe/define a single mechanism
            that allows
            any portlet [session-based or otherwise] to implement "Done"
            "Done" semantics are the ability to optionally accept/process
            inputed data in a
            mode other then VIEW and then to exit that mode; Why going back
to VIEW/NORMAL would not be enough for the DONE semantics? Wouldn't this
cover most (if not all) cases?

When you say "inputed data in a mode other than VIEW" I assume you refer to
modifying properties in EDIT or the DONE woud be used also when the portlet
is doing a trasaction in VIEW?
            generally by returning to the mode from whence the portlet
If a portlet mode transition is VIEW, EDIT, HELP, EDIT, where the DONE
semantics would take me, back to HELP or to VIEW?
            2) For portlets using the mechanism defined in (1), the portal
            MUST be
            able to establish a uniform navigational look and feel. I.e.
            users expect portlets in a given consumer to navigate in a
            consistent manner.
I assume that by "uniform navigational look and feel" you are meaning
"uniform navigational behavior", right? I don't know how this could be done
as the portal has no way to enforce portlets to provide the set of buttons
that should be displayed in the portlet content. We could certainly make
recommendations, but to me this belongs to a best practices document.
            3) The mechanism defined in (1) must allow allow a return to
            modes other
            then VIEW. For example, it must be possible for a portal to
            indicate that a portlet that navigates from VIEW to EDIT to
            HELP will navigate back to EDIT [not VIEW] when the user is
            done with HELP mode.
This is implicitly requiring the consumer to keep a history trace per
portlet. A portlet can keep track of where to go back in the session or in
the navigational state. The latter would not work when the user is clicking
on the controls (VIEW, EDIT, HELP, NORMAL, MINIMIZE, MAXIMIZE) in the
portlet window title bar, we have to see how (or if) we fix this.
            4) The mechansim defined in (1) must work for all non-VIEW
            modes be they custom or defined by the specification.

            SHOULD requirements:
            1) The mechanism defined in (1) SHOULD be expressed in our
            protocol in an
            easy and obvious mannner so portlet developers find it
I don't see convenient the fact that a portlet will always have to check the
portletmode and windowstate it will be taken when DONE semantics is applied.
What I'm trying to say is, portlets may decide to set different navigational
state depending on the portletmode and windowstate they are going. As now it
is not the portlet the one deciding the portletmode or windowstate, the
portlet has to check where the portal will take it and then set the proper
navigation state. IMO, this is an unnecessary complexity forced uppon the
            2) A portlet SHOULD be able to ignore the mechanism defined by
            (1) and
            implement semantics of its choosing [limited by other
            imposed by the portal/container within the bounds of the
            specification].  I.e. though we encourage portlets to code
            themselves using the proscribed technique, portlets should be
            able to do otherwise at a loss of user interface consistency. I
wouldn't say this is a SHOULD requirement, portlets can always do this by
just going to a specific portletmode and windowstate.
            Requirements related to the look/feel of the buttons
            MUST requirements:
            1) The mechanism we define for rendering mode control buttons
            MUST allow the portal to maintain a uniform look and feel for
            these controls across all portlets it manages.
Yes, I think is a good idea to define CSS classes to be used for buttons
that confirm a task or cancel a task. We could also add (I think it was
proposed in another change request), next-step and previous-step.
            2) The mechanism we define for rendering mode control buttons
            MUST allow the portal to control the number of buttons/types of
            operations to be used in a given Mode.  I.e. we mustn't require
            EDIT mode have a 'OK', 'APPLY', and 'CANCEL' button.  A portal
            may have choosen a different combination of these. I don't
understand why a portal would remove buttons from the portlet content.
That's dangerous, it could break portlet functionality encoded in those
actions (as it is not accessible). It would require the portal to parse the
portlet content to do. Or it would require to pass with the markupParameters
the list of  buttons the portlet can use, but still a portlet could create a
button not indicated in the markupParamters.
            3) The mechanism we define for rendering mode control buttons
            MUST allow the portal to maintain a uniform labeling of these
            controls [across locales] across all portlets it manages. It
seems like a good idea but I'm not sure if the practical end result is
desirable. Suppose a portlet that always creates English content. It is
invoked by a userAgent that indicates French locale, the portlet in the
portal page would have all its content in English except for the control
button labels that would be in French.
            SHOULD requirements:
            1) The mechanism defined in (1) SHOULD be expressed in our
            protocol in an
            easy and obvious mannner so portlet developers find it
Unless I'm missing something, (1) is about adding a set of CSS classes.
      The navigational issue is reflected in Change Request #141: Add
      previous window state and mode.  I will request Rich open a new
      change request for the button/control management.

      On the navigational issue: [Change Request #141]:
      I originally introduced this as a JSR related issue as we first
      re-identified it in the JSR EG.  Unfortunately, we [the JSR EG] is
      having a hard time deciding which of the possible mechanisms
      available to us we should use to resolve this issue. As this is an
      issue that is equally germane to us, I suggest we tackle this head on
      without waiting for JSR to make further progress.  In the end our
      resolution will likely help JSR come to a conclusion.  To get
      started, I suggest we first discuss/approve the requirements our
      solution should meet.  Once there is agreement on this 1 to N options
      can be considered for approval based on these requirements.  To get
      the ball rolling, I will send out another e-mail with 2 distinct
      solutions that meet the above requirements.

      On the button look/feel issue:
      I seem to recall we proposed this would/could be solved using CSS.
      Unfortuantely, I am not versed well enough in CSS to propose a
      solution.  Should we get started by discussing/approving a set or
      requirements and then pass these on to the Markup subcommittee [or an
      individual volunteer] to make proposal(s)?

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]