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

Client UX - ALPHA #29

Closed
0xjona opened this issue May 24, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Client UX - ALPHA #29

0xjona opened this issue May 24, 2022 · 8 comments
Assignees

Comments

@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator

0xjona commented May 24, 2022

Working on the design of UI/UX of the client side of the ALPHA

@0xjona 0xjona self-assigned this May 24, 2022
@0xjona 0xjona moved this to 📫 in retriev.org May 24, 2022
@0xjona 0xjona moved this from 📫 to Backlog in retriev.org May 24, 2022
@0xjona 0xjona changed the title Referee program [product design step 3] ALPHA UX [product design step 3] May 31, 2022
@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented May 31, 2022

belongs to 2nd release / alpha protocol design has to be ready

@irenegia
Copy link
Collaborator

irenegia commented Jun 1, 2022

@0xjona do we have a label for the 2nd release, or a way to filter the issues that belongs to it?

@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jun 1, 2022

WIP

@0xjona 0xjona moved this from Backlog to ToDo in retriev.org Jul 5, 2022
@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jul 11, 2022

comments about UX improvements in call with @claudiofabbro @Steve-Rog @irenegia

  • Welcome (intro page with preview before accessing with metamask)
  • Disclaimer
  • Menus
  • Notifications
  • Remove client-side withdraw
  • Status filter (colours)
  • CTA create/manage (+ log)
  • "Info" are non-requisite suggestions to be able to send the deal
  • Duration (units of measurement, etc.)
  • Providers box (all visible, disappear if the characteristics of the proposed deal are different from the policies set by the providers / I can choose multiple providers)
  • Opensea link (file previews?) [API if they don't work as I know?]

@0xjona 0xjona changed the title ALPHA UX [product design step 3] Client UX - ALPHA Jul 12, 2022
@0xjona 0xjona assigned claudiofabbro and unassigned 0xjona Jul 12, 2022
@cryptonetlab cryptonetlab deleted a comment from 0xjona Jul 12, 2022
@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jul 12, 2022

See #64 for upgrades to UI

@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jul 14, 2022

@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jul 15, 2022

open questions

  • We thought about the possibility of giving a custom name per each deal, after the “create deal phase”, only in the dashboard page; it’s an off chain name that can be edited (we designed it so that clients won’t confuse this editing with editing anything inside the deal, in fact the name si not a field while creating the deal); deals are automatically named e.g. “Deal n1” ecc but can be renamed to better go through them (imagine having 100 deals) [explored in the current UI proposition]
  • What happens if I create a new deal on the same file? Do we need a special create deal on the same file once the deal expires?
  • We will change “appeal requested” to appear in orange, and add “slashed” to appear in red for deals slashed (consequently adding a new field in the status filter)
  • We thought about a small preview of the file (but if it’s a folder or anything else there’s no preview) that could maybe help understand immediately if the file is correct (but we can’t add the preview in the create deal section cause the file might not me online yet, right?)
  • How is price calculated? We designed it to mainly reference the duration, since then we will multiply it to the price per kilobyte set by the provider.
  • So we’ll have recommended prices dealing both with the settings from the provider to automatically accept deals, but also to the protocol concept (so if you can set a lower collateral, a disclaimer will pop up)
  • We imagine you can only pick one provider for now; how is this actually working? What is exactly the expert mode?
  • About duration, which unit of measurements should we use?
  • Can the disclaimer be present only at the beginning?
  • Is ok to have the gas price on top?

@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jul 15, 2022

comments after call with @irenegia and @turinglabsorg

  • we should keep the disclaimer inside the dapp untile we go mainnet
  • “Gas price” must be turned into “internal deposit and network”
  • Maybe “create deal” should stay on top rather than below
  • Link tue homepage somewhere, maybe in the footer? Let’s make a better use of it
  • “Blu part” could be shorter; it means let’s use it for useful information and let’s go straight to the usable part below
  • Yes add slashed filter but also “cancelled” (maybe in blue?), these are the deals the user cancelled before being accepted
  • Names shouldn’t be editable for now, interesting idea but can’t be implemented now
  • Search bar for deal URI to quickly find a specific deal
  • Refresh button must be for each single deal
  • “Choose deal duration”, means we should use verbs to indicate action
  • We should clear the “deal creation page” to make it as basic and usable for novel users vs more complicated for users being experts of our protocols: it means a simple Interface should have the “deal uri” and “appeal addres” uneditable, and a secondary position in respect to “upload image”; then the clients should be able to choose one provider only and the duration, after that prices will result and appear automatically (@irenegia still editable in basic mode?); in expert mode everything is editable (and alerts will pop up)

@0xjona 0xjona closed this as completed Aug 8, 2022
Repository owner moved this from ToDo to Validation in retriev.org Aug 8, 2022
@0xjona 0xjona moved this from Validation to Done in retriev.org Aug 8, 2022
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants