nifi-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brandon DeVries <...@jhu.edu>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Feature proposal: Streamline visual flow design
Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:36:03 GMT
Matt,

If I understand what you're saying, it's that the goal is to get components
on to the graph with as little input as possible.  If so, then my argument
is that a connection isn't a component in the same way a processor / group
/ funnel is, and applying the same rules for the sake of consistency would
be unnecessarily confusing.  Processors can conceivably have a lot of
required configuration, and deferring that in favor of laying out the flow
makes sense.  A connection has one piece of required configuration... and
it's a check box.  If you're drawing a connection, you would think you'd
know what relationship you were making the connection for.  If you don't
know what relationship you want, you probably shouldn't be making a
connection.  Deferring that configuration doesn't make sense to me.  Again,
obviously my opinion, but I don't see the gain.  Additionally, I can
imagine trying to troubleshoot a user's flow, and trying to explain that
just because there is a line between the two processors doesn't actually
mean they're connected...


Brandon



On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:50 PM Jennifer Barnabee <
jennifer.barnabee@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rob,
> I also like enhancements 1 & 2. For the ability to pin processors or pull
> recent/popular processors from a user-generated list, can we make that
> something that is expandable/collapsible? While building a flow, I think
> people might want that type of thing open. But then later, while working
> with a flow, they'd want it out of the way.
> Great ideas!
> -Jenn
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Rob Moran <rmoran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There has been recent discussion around UI enhancements with the goal of
>> streamlining visual flow design. Please consider the following enhancements
>> and concepts for proposed solutions. Do you have any objections? If so,
>> please share your thoughts and ideas for alternate solutions to streamline
>> visual flow design in NiFi's GUI.
>>
>>
>> *Enhancement 1*Enable quicker, more efficient access to both known and
>> not yet known processors.
>>
>>
>> *Issue*The current interaction of dropping a processor on the graph and
>> being prompted with a dialog helps a user who does not know exactly which
>> one they need. However, as the number of processors increase, the current
>> methods of finding what you need become increasingly difficult. And for
>> those users who know exactly what processor they want, routine interaction
>> with the dialog becomes rather cumbersome.
>>
>> *Concept for Proposed Solution*
>> Present logical groupings of processors to the user. Ideas include
>> usage-generated categories like ‘recent’ and ‘popular,’ along with
>> categories such as those defined by the Enterprise Integration Patterns
>> (e.g., mediate, route, transform) and perhaps further subcategories if
>> applicable. These options would be accessible from the main UI as well as
>> the add processor dialog.
>>
>> Other ideas include 'pinning' processors you routinely use for quick
>> access, setting a default drag-n-drop processor, and assigning keyboard
>> shortcuts to quickly add a favorite to the graph.
>>
>> Design decisions made here could also serve as a model for placing other
>> elements onto the graph such as templates.
>>
>>
>> *Enhancement 2*Provide visual distinction to processor types.
>>
>>
>> *Issue*When viewing a flow on the graph, all processor blocks look the
>> same. As a result, users must rely on processor names alone to interpret
>> what they are doing and how the given flow is working together.
>>
>> *Concept for Proposed Solution*
>> Introduce some combination of iconography, unique styling, and more
>> descriptive labeling to processor blocks. As mentioned earlier, looking to
>> the Enterprise Integration Patterns could provide cues for visually
>> distinct icons and labeling. Unique styling could occur at various zoom
>> levels and/or screen resolution to better respond to user needs.
>>
>> *Enhancement 3*
>> Give users the choice to be prompted immediately with a configuration
>> dialog after they place a processor, draw a connection, etc. on the graph.
>>
>> *Issue*
>> Currently there is inconsistency with the interaction. Place a processor
>> - nothing. Draw a connection - configuration dialog pops up.
>>
>> *Concept for Proposed Solution*
>> Part 1 - Decide on a consistent default behavior. Part 2 - Provide the
>> user the ability to reverse the behavior. One thought is to include a
>> toggle in each configuration dialog giving the user control over the
>> behavior while in context. Additionally, there could be a user preferences
>> area where they could make global changes. A user preferences area could
>> come into play with potential solutions proposed in Enhancement 1 as well.
>> --
>> Rob
>>
>

Mime
View raw message