Re: Backup: Rework and altering of functionalities and GUI for better usability

[Adolf Belka <adolf.belka@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4272 bytes --]

Hi Matthias,

I like the 02_like_01-with_tables.png version

The table layout works very well.

The dustbin icon for the delete also is very clear.

Regards,

Adolf.


Sent from my Desktop Computer

On 17/04/2021 09:38, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22.03.2021 12:36, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> On 21 Mar 2021, at 18:25, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12588
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> in the meantime I worked on this - a bit.
>> Very good idea. This page is quite essential, but the design is quite complicated and difficult to use.
> I noticed that... ;-)
>
>>> I've made several changes and adjustments which could be implemented one
>>> by one - if they are wanted/accepted:
>>>
>>> - Changed icons to buttons => better readability.
> I went back to *original* IPFire images - for a short overview of the
> whole process, please take a look at the attachments. Thanks for the
> tips with 'go-bottom.png'! ;-)
>
>> Yes. I am not sure whether “Backup” is a good choice, because it could be interpreted as a noun. Maybe “Backup Now” or “Update Backup” would be a better choice. Does anybody have any ideas?
>>
>>> - For buttons to work, I added two lang strings for button labeling.
>> No problem here.
>>
>>> - Cleaned up the code a bit, some if-queries were unnessecary (if
>>> ($cgiparams{'ACTION'} eq...).
>>>
>>> - Changed the order of the (Addon-)buttons to "Download - Save - Delete"
>>> (old: Download was in the middle).
>> What is the rationale here?
>>
>> Why is this order better?
> As explained in another posting, this came up because other GUI pages
> use exactly this image order. But by adding tables, I didn't get this to
> work as I wanted. So I kept to the old order. Still works. ;-)
>
>>> - Marked IPF-files bold => better readability (I already sent this in
>>> one day: => https://patchwork.ipfire.org/patch/3124/).
> Obsolete. If someone wants it, it can be easily added again.
>
>> Can we not have a proper table here? Like this:
>>
>> | Package    | Last Backup      | Size |                              |
>> | wio        | 2021-03-22 11:31 | 8 kB | [Download] [Backup] [Delete] |
> At your command... Done. ;-))
>
> Its just the old order: [Download] [Delete] [Backup]
>
>>> - Added query for deleting a backup file (onclick=\"return confirm...).
>> Very good idea, too.
> Implemented.
>
>> Can we make this a function that we can add to various other places, too? Like firewall rules?
> Sorry - I took a look, but don't know how to do this (the best way). No
> idea.
>
>>> Details in the attached screenshot.
>>>
>>> Proposed ToDo - as a start: Alter the info text for restoring to make
>>> clear that only the addon *configs* are restored, not the addons themselves.
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Thoughts? Opinions?
>> Very good ideas. Please keep them all in individual patches so that they can be reviewed one by one :)
> For a laugh: I wrote so much versions in the last days that somewhere in
> between I didn't know which 'backup.cgi' was which. Sometimes its
> helpful to choose meaningful file names... ;-)
>
> The attached screenshots show some states of the development process and
> the most striking changes. Some I could not split into individual patches.
>
> Today I came to the conclusion to send these shots to the list so
> everyone can take a look. I personally think that (perhaps?) it looks
> somehow better now. But before going on, I would like to get some feedback.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best,
> Matthias
>
> P.S.: Could "someone" please tell me how we could use the following
> "sub" ('backup.cgi', Core 155, line 107)!?
>
> ...
> sub refreshpage{&Header::openbox( 'Waiting', 1, "<meta
> http-equiv='refresh' content='1;'>" );print "<center><img
> src='/images/clock.gif' alt='' /><br/><font
> color='red'>$Lang::tr{'pagerefresh'}</font></center>";&Header::closebox();}
> ...
>
> Exactly the same sub is used in 'pakfire.cgi' (line 47 and line 207),
> but I've absolutely no idea how and where (which line in 'backup.cgi'!?)
> we could implement this sub in 'backup.cgi'.
> Otherwise its - perhaps - obsolete!?