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

[Resource page debt] Reorganize the resource actions (order, segmentation, unfolding criteria) #109

Open
oboc-sts opened this issue Jan 13, 2025 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@oboc-sts
Copy link
Collaborator

oboc-sts commented Jan 13, 2025

Problem / Opportunity
Each resource type has a set of actions a user can perform. Some actions are generic, available for most resource types (e.g. view config, edit config, delete, etc), whilst other actions are specific to a particular resource type. Some are more (frequently) used than others. Some are more critical than others. Some are specific to particular user roles, whilst others are universally applicable to all users.

Currently, regardless of the type of actions or the type of resource or the type of user, all resource pages "promote" the same actions (view / edit config) for all resource types.

Added value / Impact

  • Improved ease and speed of use
  • Reduced interaction cost
  • Reduced cognitive load
  • Increased trust and loyalty (we are the authority that knows best and we show this at every step)

Solution / Proposal
For all resource types in Rancher redefine:

  • the order of actions: least to most critical actions, most to least used actions, etc.
  • the segmentation: max 3 brackets = 2 horizontal separators (e.g. specific, generic, management, etc.)
  • the unfolding criteria: what we show by default as actions on the resource page (e.g. the most used 3 actions, the first 5 actions based on the order, etc)

Mind the accessibility:

  • Use labels or find ways to make the icons self explanatory

Preview
Image

Associated links
Resource page redesign epic

@oboc-sts oboc-sts self-assigned this Jan 13, 2025
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

1 participant