WebLearn/CopyUI/Proposal

This summarizes what was proposed for a way forward after discussing the salient issues on 3^rd November 2006.

Additions / Changes

• enable "CopyUI" for copying all resources.

• enable "CopyUI" for bring too.

  • bring would be a push, i.e. select the source first and then browse to the destination whilst in move / bring mode.

• discard pop-up window (this is achievable in other ways, i.e. right-click + 'Open in new window').

• discard the notion of a best practice area.

• discard the distinction of peer-to-peer and adopter copying (effectively just have the latter).

Lower priority / Not to be tackled

• any of the refactoring suggestions concerning moving of copy functionality to types such as Resource and BuildingSession.

Pros

• should make copying easier, especially for novices, by creating a more intuitive workflow:

  • go to source first, capture this as the implicit copy source by invoking copy and then browse to the intended destination. All valid target destinations are annotated with a radio button.

  • copying will essentially be graphical / visual as opposed to textual, i.e. not needing to copy the source URL to the system clipboard first.

  • certain errors captured immediately, e.g. recursive copy > 100 resources, rather than "on copy".

  • the number of types of other errors will potentially reduced, e.g. copying to a destination that's inside the source, as the interface will not offer this as a possibility in the first place.

Cons

• involves reversing the current workflow.
• user documentation and training materials will need to be altered to reflect the changes.
• users may get confused if they inadvertently enter copy mode, i.e. slightly different view and need to know to press 'Cancel' to exit.

• further diverging codebases between WebLearn and bodington and its knock-on effects with other bodington community partners. In a worst-case scenario, others may not wish this code to be added to the common repository (meaning Oxford has to maintain the code just locally). Even in a best-case scenario (where the additions are generally agreed to be "good") this creates further work with regard to merging with localized partner codebases.