Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor: menu #572

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Dec 29, 2017
Merged

refactor: menu #572

merged 16 commits into from
Dec 29, 2017

Conversation

hacdias
Copy link
Member

@hacdias hacdias commented Dec 28, 2017

What do you think about something like this?

This:

  • is more compact
  • is more simple
  • has easier navigation.
  • simplifies the process of adding new panes.

Todo

  • Review setup screen
  • Light Theme
  • Review DOCS on Readme
  • Settings inside menubar

Light Theme

image

image

image

image

Dark Theme

image

image

image

image

This closes #560.

/cc @ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-gui-team

@daviddias
Copy link
Member

Looking good @hacdias . Is this part of the work to make adding panes easier?

@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Dec 28, 2017

Yes, it will be easier to do so if this gets merged. Basically, on the left we have the available panes and it gets displayed on the right.

Despites that, I think it's also easier for the end-user to navigate through the application instead of having those options in the bottom left as we have right now.

@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Dec 28, 2017

@diasdavid could you take a look at this idea, please?

- panesOrder is the order by which the options are showed on the menu.
- panes are the panes configuration.

I think we could easily customize it this way instead of having switched and everything declared. What do you think? Is this an elegant solution?

Edit: just thought about passing state as an argument to the render functions to make it easier to understand. Done.

@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Dec 28, 2017

I'm also in favour of having a lighter theme: Or at least an option to toggle between dark and light. What are your thoughts?

Up to date screenshots on the initial comment.

@hacdias hacdias changed the title refactor/suggestion: menu refactor: menu Dec 29, 2017
@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Dec 29, 2017

Some still unanswered questions before merging this PR:

  • Which should be the "default" pane? I mean, the one which opens by default when we start Station? The node information or files?
  • Does it make more sense to have the "close station" button in Settings or in Info? In my opinion, it makes more sense in Settings.
  • Related to that, we have Two buttons for the same thing #560. Should the 'Shutdown' button really close station? If so, we wouldn't need the previous option.

(Check the screenshots on the first comment)

/cc @machawk1 @diasdavid

@daviddias
Copy link
Member

Which should be the "default" pane? I mean, the one which opens by default when we start Station? The node information or files?

The Informations Pane

Does it make more sense to have the "close station" button in Settings or in Info? In my opinion, it makes more sense in Settings.

  • Quit Station (as in close the app) - In the Settings
  • Stop/Start the daemon - In the corner

Related to that, we have #560. Should the 'Shutdown' button really close station? If so, we wouldn't need the previous option.

Shutdown/stop should just stop the daemon and not quit station.

Also, default to the dark theme but yes you can have the light theme.

image

image

Once this details are done, I suggest to go ahead and merge and focus on the Pinning feature #571 that will be a stellar feature.

@daviddias
Copy link
Member

One more thing:

image

@hacdias
Copy link
Member Author

hacdias commented Dec 29, 2017

image

@diasdavid may I merge it?

@daviddias
Copy link
Member

@hacdias go for it :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Two buttons for the same thing
2 participants