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

Redesign Create Cluster Dialog #208

Closed
grolu opened this issue Oct 12, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #416
Closed

Redesign Create Cluster Dialog #208

grolu opened this issue Oct 12, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #416
Assignees
Labels
area/usability Usability related component/dashboard Gardener Dashboard effort/2m Effort for issue is around 2 months kind/discussion Discussion (enaging others in deciding about multiple options) kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension

Comments

@grolu
Copy link
Contributor

grolu commented Oct 12, 2018

The Create Cluster Dialog needs a complete overhaul to improve usability. More options have been added to the different tabs of the dialog and the usage is not straight forward anymore (e.g. changing infrastructure on tab#1 reverts options on tab#2 etc.). In addition, we need to integrate more features, e.g. a shoot yaml editor as last step before creation. Therefore we need to completely redesign the create cluster dialog:
Current planned activities:

  • Get rid of the dialog, rather use a a dedicated page for the creation prcoess
  • Change to a creation wizard mode, advantages:
  • Do not pre-select all values, some values should be selected explicitly (e.g. infrastructure)

Maybe this issue (together with #207) also helps solving #127 (reduce costs)

@grolu grolu added kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension size/l Size of pull request is large (see gardener-robot robot/bots/size.py) component/dashboard Gardener Dashboard area/usability Usability related labels Oct 12, 2018
@vlerenc
Copy link
Member

vlerenc commented Oct 12, 2018

Thank you @grolu. It will be hard to improve the cluster creation dialog, because people are generally very satisfied with it and we get extremely good feedback. Still, you mention valid points. I guess, I am basically saying, it will be tough to improve in comparison to what we already have. ;-)

Solutions for #207/#127 would indeed be nice. As an idea, while you speak about defaults, maybe different "cluster templates" could make sense, too.

@freegroup
Copy link

I like the dialog as well.

One big improvement could be to restore the last settings for a new cluster creation.
In this case, the last settings are applied to the new cluster. e.g. type of Infra, NodeTypes,...

I don'T like a wizard. The very first draft was a wizard and the feedback was not so good.
The problem with a wizard is, that you must run to the end.....even if you know that everything
fits well.

@freegroup
Copy link

If you add another button "Next", you show the user that there are still other setting possibilities and still you can create the cluster without further action.

Now you didn't have any hidden settings.

bildschirmfoto 2018-10-15 um 10 36 14

@grolu grolu added status/accepted Issue was accepted as something we need to work on kind/discussion Discussion (enaging others in deciding about multiple options) labels Oct 17, 2018
@grolu
Copy link
Contributor Author

grolu commented Oct 17, 2018

We will take all comments into consideration. There is no final concept yet and we certainly do not want to make cluster creation more complicated for our users. However, we expect that we can ask our users to think twice before creating a cluster, considering costs, expected workload, etc. (which is, by the way, not an every day task - if so, this should be automated...)
We will give an update once we have a first concept.

@gardener-robot-ci-1 gardener-robot-ci-1 added lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) and removed lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) labels Dec 17, 2018
@gardener-robot-ci-1 gardener-robot-ci-1 added lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) and removed lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) labels Feb 16, 2019
@grolu grolu self-assigned this Mar 17, 2019
@gardener-robot-ci-1 gardener-robot-ci-1 added lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) and removed lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) labels May 17, 2019
@gardener-robot-ci-1 gardener-robot-ci-1 added lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) and removed lifecycle/stale Nobody worked on this for 6 months (will further age) labels Jul 16, 2019
@gardener-robot-ci-1 gardener-robot-ci-1 removed the status/accepted Issue was accepted as something we need to work on label Aug 24, 2019
@gardener-robot gardener-robot added the effort/2m Effort for issue is around 2 months label Mar 8, 2021
@gardener-robot gardener-robot removed the size/l Size of pull request is large (see gardener-robot robot/bots/size.py) label Mar 8, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/usability Usability related component/dashboard Gardener Dashboard effort/2m Effort for issue is around 2 months kind/discussion Discussion (enaging others in deciding about multiple options) kind/enhancement Enhancement, improvement, extension
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants