“If I had asked my customers, they would have asked for a faster horse” - Henry Ford
@cpurbaugh I guess this is an unscientific poll and unfortunately any change will be opposed at first, and then accepted. Also without experiencing the new desk for a few days, it is not a good idea to compare it to the current one.
Also what appears good at a glance isn’t always best. A fantastic example is the 1975 Pepsi Challenge, where believing a voting contest resulted in a huge debacle for Coca Cola.
It is an interesting philosophical question on how do we take calls like these. Maybe we need a core committee at some point. Right now there is no right answer.
@rmehta You’ve been saying for years that the community needs to take more part in development in ERPNext. Well, they’ve done it. They’ve improved your UI and sent a pull request to merge it. They’ve voted, and they voted for it. The pepsi challenge is not a valid comparison. ERPNext is not changing the desk because some poll said Odoo was better, and Odoo has no desk. ERPNext is changing the desk because you want to change the desk.
IGood to see the community take active part in contributing!
As far as Desk 2.0 goes, it does not really solve any problem. People already have their OS task bar, browser tabs, this is another permanent distraction. Also it is based on the current desk, which is badly designed.
Splitting the desk off into it’s own app does not work for anyone on ERPNext hosting. So not best for everyone.
Voting is a great way for decision making, which is why nearly every government in the world has some method in place for doing so.
By it’s nature, voting gives a voice to those with ‘skin in the game.’ Arbitrary decision making does not.
This goes back to my original idea of splitting ERPNext into a platform with installable apps. However, there needs to be some sort of Frappe version of an app store to automate installs, and to allow installation on a hosted server, something like this:
I think Desk is good for shortcut (favourite, most used, or just a collection of whatever icons a user wants).
On the other hand, having too many icons is confusing. I ended up only using the “collection icons” (Accounts, Buying, Selling, etc.)
And still most of the time I just click the Explore icons and proceed from the sidebar.
Unfortunately, the sidebar can only be sorted by alphabet. So adding more apps or domains, or (in many cases) after changing the language, it can be confusing to find the correct menu in the new order.
So, my take on this matter are:
Keep the Desk but make it group-able. Icons are grouped by their parent modules or domains (icons grouped in Accounts, Selling, etc. and Manufacturing, Educations, etc.)
Make the same with the sidebar menu according to:
domain: Manufacturing, Education, Hospitality, etc.
modules: Accounts, Selling, Buying, etc.
tools: Tools, Contacts, etc.
settings: Setup, Settings. etc.
support: Website, Help/Learn, etc.
This way there is hierarchy to help user navigating the whole application.
Woah, if this is government, hope you are paying your taxes.
I hope you are realising you are trying to control someone else’s labour.
I’m talking about decision making within governments. Not the public voting officials into office.
The right attitude should be: we love the existing desk, we will commit x hours of labour per week to support issues in the desk. Or here is the equivalent amount.
The open pull request for the desk improvements already shows that point.
Voting in the poll is not “skin in the game”. Skin in the game is when you are spending hundreds or thousands of hours in building a community software.
If someone hasn’t voted in the poll that’s spent hundreds of hours building something, then they must not care about that issue. Furthermore, you coming out with just some random decision to drastically change the UI doesn’t give them a voice!
You need to find a more convincing argument, or some volunteers who are interested in maintaining the desk!
The desk cannot be maintained if you remove it from the software. If you keep it in, improvements must be approved by you, which you seem unwilling to do. Again, there’s an open pull request for improvements to this software that you are refusing to pull because it’s not what you want to do! This isn’t a matter of how will it be maintained. It’s a matter of you won’t allow it to be maintained.
In the broader scheme, this conversation seems like it might discourage future pull requests and innovation from the community. What is the appropriate mechanism for independent developers to determine if their contribution will be seriously considered before investing time in development?
The Foundation might help to relieve and resolve such issues. But at present that body and support of governance is stalled. As bigger players step up, the Foundation will assume a leadership and stabilizing role. Money talks…