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

Convert admin orders table into full width layout #1782

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 27, 2017

Conversation

tvdeyen
Copy link
Member

@tvdeyen tvdeyen commented Mar 17, 2017

The admin orders table is too narrow on modern screen sizes. There is plenty of space we could use to display the full information on the orders table.

When adapting the full width layout we get too wide columns on the search form, though. This is fixed by utilizing different column sizes for the viewports.

The result is pretty good without moving around any html elements (what potentially could break admin overrides of extensions or shops).

Before

before-full-hd

After

after-full-hd

after-large

after-ipad-landscape

after-ipad-portrait

after-mobile-portrait

The admin orders table is too narrow on modern screen sizes. There is plenty of space we could use to display the full information on the orders table.

When adapting the full width layout we get too wide columns on the search form, though. This is fixed by utilizing different column sizes for the viewports. The result is pretty good without moving around any html elements (what potentially could break admin overrides of extensions or shops)
@tvdeyen tvdeyen mentioned this pull request Mar 17, 2017
@tvdeyen
Copy link
Member Author

tvdeyen commented Mar 17, 2017

@Mandily please have a look at this.

@tvdeyen tvdeyen requested a review from jhawthorn March 17, 2017 17:34
@Mandily
Copy link
Contributor

Mandily commented Mar 17, 2017

I'm definitely for the full width on the table.

The third and fourth screenshots start to look a little odd to me with form fields moving around and empty space being on the left side of a row. Is there a way to clean that up at all without breaking extensions and shops as you mentioned above?

And just to double check - is this replicable with the other listing pages as well?

@Mandily
Copy link
Contributor

Mandily commented Mar 17, 2017

To play devil's advocate - did you consider putting a max width on the search area so preserve the order/groupings of form elements a little better?

This was my idea in #1290 but I could see too how using less space up top could be more desirable. It also leads to the question of how well are those fields really organized at this point anyway? I wanted to move them around and even change the way a couple worked (as you can see in the checkboxes) but I was never super clear on how that would affect other stores.

Any thoughts on this approach vs the full width one?
959f3d3c-4461-11e6-9e92-943a652aed60

@tvdeyen
Copy link
Member Author

tvdeyen commented Mar 17, 2017

The third and fourth screenshots start to look a little odd to me with form fields moving around and empty space being on the left side of a row. Is there a way to clean that up at all without breaking extensions and shops as you mentioned above?

No. We would need to move fields into other containers and this would potentially break extensions or shops.

And just to double check - is this replicable with the other listing pages as well?

No. Every listing page need its own treatment.

did you consider putting a max width on the search area so preserve the order/groupings of form elements a little better?

Yes, I did. I decided against because we would limit the space for potential search field additions. Some shops may add additional fields to the search form. By limiting the width we would reduce the possibility to add additional rows to that form.

@tvdeyen
Copy link
Member Author

tvdeyen commented Mar 17, 2017

We definitely should reconsider the layout of that form. It is not ideal and has some elements in strange places.

But: I wanted to make the changeset as small as possible.

I think this is a great step forward with lots of room for improvement, sure. But better what we have right now.

@Mandily
Copy link
Contributor

Mandily commented Mar 17, 2017

I agree 👍

@cbrunsdon cbrunsdon added the changelog:solidus_backend Changes to the solidus_backend gem label Mar 17, 2017
Copy link
Contributor

@mamhoff mamhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

Copy link
Contributor

@jhawthorn jhawthorn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@jhawthorn jhawthorn merged commit bcf6525 into solidusio:master Mar 27, 2017
@tvdeyen tvdeyen deleted the orders-full-width branch March 27, 2017 19:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog:solidus_backend Changes to the solidus_backend gem
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants