New interface

Discuss everything about the next generation of GroupOffice.

Moderator: Developers

We're interested in what you think and what your pro's and con's are.

Responsive HTML5
51
57%
Extjs 6.0
38
43%
 
Total votes: 89
s2igmbh
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:42 am

Re: New interface

Postby s2igmbh » Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:42 am

HTML5 !!!
jullien
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:14 am

Re: New interface

Postby jullien » Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:47 am

Think html5 (responsive) have to be an optionnal theme of the existing extjs design.

All my users love the extjs design because it's functionnal and fit perfectly the use on desktop.
The only thing missing in the actual version of GO is a dedicated responsive design theme for those who don't use activesync or just want to have their stuff on a browser.
As i see, in the extjs 6 framework, you can do responsice design themes easily.

Anyway it's good to see that GO continue to evolve in the goo way !
axurit.de
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:38 am

Re: New interface

Postby axurit.de » Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:57 am

Hard to tell without a calender preview in the HTML5 example. As we use calenders a lot, and usually have more than one to display simultaneously (I for example have six different calendars displaying in parallel), the calendar frontend is very important to us.

The previewed changes in the email interface will probably be accepted with less complaints (even though I personally dislike those huge thumbable folder buttons - I have about 200 active and some archive folders; how am I going to find the right one when the frontend doesn't display more than four or five at the same time?)

Anyway, as we use the GO mainly on our desktop computers / laptops where we have large screens, keyboards and mice, I clearly vote for keeping the frontend as close as possible to how it is today. Even with HTML5 our mobile users wouldn't use the web frontend any more than today, because they get everything they need through DAV sync.

My vote is clearly for ExtJS6.
vuo
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 9:58 am

Re: New interface

Postby vuo » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:14 pm

mcharvat wrote:
vuo wrote:Hybrid apps have terrible performance and is a very bad idea anyway.


Did you see comparation between hybrid Sencha's Fastbook and native Facebook app? Both were compared on iPhone 4 and you didnt have any chance to know which was which - maybe fastbook was a bit faster. In these days mobiles have more memory and faster CPU so I guess when you create app with good architecture you dont have performance issues.


Fastbook is a custom built HTML5 app and not a fully fledged framework like EXTJS, they aren't even comparable.

Surely you can run it, but as an active CRM App, it would drain the battery in a few hours as a hybrid app.

My company actually tried to create a thin-client hybrid webapp music player, but failed because we couldn't get a handle on battery usage. The built in webkit windows that are needed to access native HTML5 functionality is very limited as well as very battery-draining.

Not to mention the enormous difficulty of targeting different platforms in a single app.
mcharvat
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:36 pm
Contact:

Re: New interface

Postby mcharvat » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:02 pm

vuo wrote:Fastbook is a custom built HTML5 app and not a fully fledged framework like EXTJS, they aren't even comparable.

Surely you can run it, but as an active CRM App, it would drain the battery in a few hours as a hybrid app.

My company actually tried to create a thin-client hybrid webapp music player, but failed because we couldn't get a handle on battery usage. The built in webkit windows that are needed to access native HTML5 functionality is very limited as well as very battery-draining.

Not to mention the enormous difficulty of targeting different platforms in a single app.


Fastbook is based on Sencha Touch - they only simplified some components because frame/window had limitation in number of components etc. Personally I dont have experience with battery usage of hybrid app.

I dont think you will have problem with different platforms. Thats why you should you framework like Sencha, Ionic and so on. As developer you should focus on components not issues with each platform. However I agree with my friend who said JS dont have to do anything with css but live Sencha's structure.
jhsdurham
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:04 am

Re: New interface

Postby jhsdurham » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:19 pm

Is there a way to show us what the Calendar would look like in these 2 different options?

80% of our time is spent in the Calendar, and the remainder in the e-mail function. We do not use much of anything else. Anyone using it mobile are using sync to use the native apps on their mobile device.

I noticed neither of these let you change the placement of the window? Right now in the Email tab, you click Administration -> Toggle Window, and a user can have folders on the left, message list on top, message body on bottom. Most here prefer that. I hope we are not losing that for 3 columns? Otherwise, our vote is for Ext mode. Users do not like radical change and loss of things they've come to know.
mschering
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8154
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:06 pm
Location: The Netherlands - Den Bosch
Contact:

Re: New interface

Postby mschering » Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:09 pm

Thanks for all input!

Both options will result in a different interface. The demo here is just a simple prototype and is of course lacking features. A calendar would look similar to what you have now.
Best regards,

Merijn Schering
Intermesh
remmedia
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:00 pm

Re: New interface

Postby remmedia » Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:46 pm

In my opinion Group-Office has one of it's main power in his featurefull webgui. Just as many other already said, syncing for mobile devices has many advantages. HTML5 is nice, but... If you really want to use Group Office on mobile devices, an app would be a much better solution, as only with an app you could use the full advantages of using Group-Office.
Another disadvantages of using an HTML5 gui on mobile devices is, that you have to use different apps for group-office and other calendars/adressbooks/etc.

So in my opinion the main question about the new interface would be on the desktop part. There, as already mentioned before, the powerfull webgui makes group-office successful. Dropping features just to have it's own HTML5 gui is not a solution.

Third view is on production. An own gui(framework) has to be written and maintained from scratch on. Power that better could be used for new features or the extending of existing features.
vuo
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 9:58 am

Re: New interface

Postby vuo » Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:40 pm

mschering wrote:Thanks for all input!

Both options will result in a different interface. The demo here is just a simple prototype and is of course lacking features. A calendar would look similar to what you have now.


Would the JSON API be different depending on HTML5/ExtJS6 or would they be just as capable?
trumanphillips
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:45 pm

Re: New interface

Postby trumanphillips » Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:45 pm

I'd need to see a bit more than these mock ups to make a firm decision, but considering we use this project as a desktop application replacement for Outlook and projects the HTML5 concept would be lacking in features from my point of view.

I'd likely consider a new system than go in that direction.

Sorta like the Windows 8 controversy, desktop and mobile/touch interfaces are different animals.
tgy
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:43 am

Re: New interface

Postby tgy » Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:58 pm

Hello everybody.

Very short answer from us. We and our customers love the possibilities of the actual interface - I don't see a chance to get everything done in HTML5.

You cannot draw functionality back from a system - I think we will loose all customers without a heavy interface.

Please keep it ;-)

Best regards
Thomas
fhdeggendorf
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: New interface

Postby fhdeggendorf » Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:59 am

What I am wondering is: Why do the proponents of pure html5 do not take part in this discussion?
The majority is for html5, but they do not provide any arguments!

Anyway, I can speak for our university. 500 people are working with GO and I see no need for a hybrid app which runs on smartphones.
If I understand Merijn correctly, he considers html5 as an option to bring the whole application to Android and iphone.

I see that there exists a bunch of native apps on smartphones already (e.g. K9 for imap, DAVdroid for caldav) which are specialized for being operated by a finger on a small display.
During the last year, GO-caldav has been evolved more and more RFC compliant, so there is no need for a special GO html interface on smartphones.

I can't imagine that someone would access his emails on the smartphone by a web app. So it makes no sense to cut back a feature rich interface we have now.
It would make sense however to improve caldav further (upgrade from sabreDAV 1.8 to 3) and to introduce more important recurrency rules on the GO server which are supported by clients. It would be a waste of time to rewrite a whole interface, just to bring it to a tiny display. Our users do their work on desktop PCs with huge monitors and they want their calendar on the smartphone, that's all.

I clearly vote for ExtJS!
fischli
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:06 am

Re: New interface

Postby fischli » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:02 pm

I voted for html5 and I also do have arguments.

HTML5 is platform independent and I would have additional dependencies with any JS-framework. If we would have need for a feature rich groupware application, then I would look after a JAVA-coded one. I do not expect an outlook exchange from such an webgui.

If you do not have access or if you are not permitted to use imap and/or synchronisation tools, then you are out of focus to use those native apps by smartphone. I can't say how much users of GO are familiar with these restrictions, but for my company it's a trade-off with out security policies. A responsive webgui is a usable and the only secure solution in such an corporate environment. I would never, ever permit imap access to these servers by smartphone. I can't afford it that the smartphone will be (accidentally) used as cache for all our communications and sensitive contact informations. It would be a nightmare if the phone starts syncing to some clouds.

No webgui useable by smartphone - no access from outside!
I clearly vote for HTML5!
NONOMO
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:43 pm

Re: New interface

Postby NONOMO » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:10 pm

Please HTML 5 !!!
- Easy modification and extension
- Every device possible
- Fast and easy
fhdeggendorf
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: New interface

Postby fhdeggendorf » Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:25 pm

fischli wrote:If you do not have access or if you are not permitted to use imap and/or synchronisation tools, then you are out of focus to use those native apps by smartphone.


@fischli: Why should it be more secure to access your mailbox through https instead of imaps in a corporate environment?
What is the reason for a company policy which does not allow to use imaps from the internet?
E.g. Dovecot IS secure, even you place it in the internet ...

Or does the company have concerns that emails fall into wrong hands if the device (smartphone) is stolen? I am just curious ...

Return to “GroupOffice 7.0”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron