Images Exists

[RayYates]

Using Beta3. This was not fixed from Beta2

What's the point of Overwrite Images when applying frameworks if the framework won't apply without checking this box?

The framework SHOULD still apply without checking this box.

[Alex Kruglyak]

Re: Images Exists

Hi Ray,

I agree with you in theory, however, in principle, whenever one is about to overwrite "anything", there should always be a warning.
Overwrite is a one way trip, so it's best to ensure that's the action the user wants to perform.

Also, having a Framework that's been only partially applied would create unnecessary issues for support.

Thanks.

Alex

[RayYates]

Re: Images Exists

I gather from your response, overwriting images it is not optional.

OK then I fear you missed missed my point. By putting a check box on the screen it implies that overwriting images is optional;

Instead of [_] Overwrite Images

Perhaps [_] Image files will be overwritten. Check to acknowledge.

[Brandon MUS]

Re: Images Exists

I'm with Ray. If the box is there to only allow overwriting, then why can't we apply the framework if we don't check it.

If its a confirmation you are wanting, remove the checkbox and use a javascript confirm dialog or something.

[Alex Kruglyak]

Re: Images Exists

The Overwrite Images checkbox follows conventions of the software.
There isn't a place that I know of that displays a JavaScript popup when one wishes to Overwrite an image.
This case is no different than when you upload an image for a product or category and get an error saying this image already exists.
Keep in mind that images may have the same file names yet have entirely different content.
The merchant may want to know that there was a conflict with one of his/her images and verify that it's ok to overwrite it.

These are some of the many reasons why we'd avoid changing this process.

Thanks.

[Alex Kruglyak]

Re: Images Exists

Edit: PC went down earlier today so I ended up submitting half of my post.

I hope it made sense anyways :)

[RayYates]

Re: Images Exists

It's just that I can forsee times when a developer may want to re-install a framework but may NOT want to over-write the images.

[Brandon MUS]

Re: Images Exists

My biggest argument is that if it is an option (which by making it an unchecked checkbox by default), it shouldn't be required. If it is required, a note or a confirmation would be a better interface (sorry if it doesn't conform to the rest of Miva).
It sounds like a lot of us beta testers were confused by the operation, and we're supposed to be the power users

[Barrett]

Re: Images Exists

While not experiencing this directly I want to throw in my .02 in general to please keep open mind, step back and listen to the noise the lab rats are making.
If several people aren't getting the UI logic or procedure at first glance like a toaster, then consider polishing it a bit. Standardization is an excellent thing and lives depend on my recognition and application of this concept in another safety sensitive industry I'm involved in, but not to the point of what oh what is that saying oh yeh throw the baby out with the bath water...

[RayYates]

Re: Images Exists

Alex I see that you feel strongly about this so I promise I will drop it after making this last point.

When you upload a single graphic file or add a module, Merchant provides an overwrite checkbox. Since Merchant has no way of knowing what file the customer is going to upload and the file may already exist, it makes sense to prompt the user if the file if found before over-writing it.

I submit that this is not the same situation.
1. There are multiple files.
2. The files have already been uploaded.
3. Merchant knows what files are involved.
4. The client may want to re-install the framework without re-installing the graphics.

Consider the following: a user wants to try out a few frameworks before deciding on one.

He installs framework #1, tweeks the graphics a bit, alters the css, checks and unchecks items on some pages.

Decides to try out a different framework and saves the current one as framework #2. Uploads and installs framework #3 decides he doesn't like it; trys to rever back to the one he just saved. However, the framewok will not reload because he check a box then unchecked it but the XML files is still reporting the item or because he introduced some othe bug.

At this point he will have to revert back to framework #1 and loose all his tweeks. Unless he knows how to download and unpack #2 and re-upload his graphics and css, he will have to start over.

This is nearly the situation I found myself in when upgrading to Beta3. If it happend to me, it will happen to others.

Along with the ability to install a framework, sans graphics, I suspect you will eventually be asked to provide the ability to install the working parts of a framework when their is a bug within some page or item.

I know you guys are trying to get a product out the door and the checkbox issue is likely not a top priority. Please consider adding it to some future priority list along with the ability to select / de-select which framework components to install.

Ray

[Alex Kruglyak]

Re: Images Exists

Alex I see that you feel strongly about this so I promise I will drop it after making this last point.

When you upload a single graphic file or add a module, Merchant provides an overwrite checkbox. Since Merchant has no way of knowing what file the customer is going to upload and the file may already exist, it makes sense to prompt the user if the file if found before over-writing it.

I submit that this is not the same situation.
1. There are multiple files.
2. The files have already been uploaded.
3. Merchant knows what files are involved.
4. The client may want to re-install the framework without re-installing the graphics.

Consider the following: a user wants to try out a few frameworks before deciding on one.

He installs framework #1, tweeks the graphics a bit, alters the css, checks and unchecks items on some pages.

Decides to try out a different framework and saves the current one as framework #2. Uploads and installs framework #3 decides he doesn't like it; trys to rever back to the one he just saved. However, the framewok will not reload because he check a box then unchecked it but the XML files is still reporting the item or because he introduced some othe bug.

At this point he will have to revert back to framework #1 and loose all his tweeks. Unless he knows how to download and unpack #2 and re-upload his graphics and css, he will have to start over.

This is nearly the situation I found myself in when upgrading to Beta3. If it happend to me, it will happen to others.

Along with the ability to install a framework, sans graphics, I suspect you will eventually be asked to provide the ability to install the working parts of a framework when their is a bug within some page or item.

I know you guys are trying to get a product out the door and the checkbox issue is likely not a top priority. Please consider adding it to some future priority list along with the ability to select / de-select which framework components to install.

Ray

Hi Ray,

An Overwrite box is there only in instances when you're replacing files. This is the case with Framework Images. Unlike Pages or Components, there is no revert nor undo button when an image gets replaced.
I do understand where you're coming from, but you also have to understand that this option is not there specifically for advanced users.

You folks know what you're doing. What happens if I removed this option and a novice user replaces his/her logo image along with other images that had the same name? Again, there is no undo button for file replacement.

You guys may blame my OCD for this, but my philosophy for development has always been "better be safe than sorry".

The only way I could see around this issue is if each graphic that already exists was highlighted in red...

ex: graphics/en-US/mmui/addone.gif (Image Exists).

or something along those lines so the user can see what is being replaced rather than just a javascript confirm.

Thanks.

I'm going to go wash my hands now ;)

[RayYates]

Re: Images Exists

What happens if I removed this option and a novice user replaces his/her logo image...

I'm saying, if the Overwire button is not checked, install the framework anyway. Just don't install the images.

[Alex Kruglyak]

Re: Images Exists

I apologize...I misread your post.

I'll discuss this further but I don't think we have the time to make any changes to this option before release.

Thanks.

[Alex Kruglyak]

Re: Images Exists

Also...if existing images were skipped and were required by the framework; now you have a partial framework and have to find a way to get those images either out of the package or elsewhere.

[RayYates]

Re: Images Exists

if existing images were skipped and were required by the framework...

I understand. It would be the responsibility of the person installing the framework to check the box.