2012-03-13 Tuesday Meeting
Attending: Chris, Josh (notes), Andrew, Colin, Emma, Jean-Marie, Liza, Melissa, Ola, Roger, Scott, Sebastien, Stick, Will, Dom (14:02 UK), Curtis (14:32 UK)
Remember: Agenda must be complete (with estimated times) on the day before the meeting. Any additions after that must go at the bottom (AOCB)
Housekeeping Pre-Meeting - 2pm Start
Matters Arising (<10 mins)
- Josh: explain 2nd action point (for Jean-Marie) DONE
- Jean-Marie: Make a list of all the deprecated items in 4.4 for discussion next week.
- Jean-marie: Reply to Rapa asking for whole code
- Melissa: Reply to Jeeep DONE
- Melissa: QA Handle #4232, (#4228, #4227 known issue) DONE
- Ola: Contact re: http://qa.openmicroscopy.org.uk/qa/feedback/4229/
Email and Forum Review - checked at (5 mins)
Email -
- Marek Cebecauer, [ome-users] Ubuntu 12.04
- Juergen Helmers, [ome-users] importing HCS data as a screen
Forums -
- dballvt Re: Uploading from MATLAB
- Code forum review - none pending
QA -
linkID Status User/email Type Created Selected file Comment Error 4243 new a.ostrowski@... Insight 4.3.3 2012 03 12 - Was loading yet another large ... java.lang.Exception: org.... 4240 new m.spitaler@i... Insight 4.3.2 2012 03 12 - - java.lang.Exception: java... 4229 new unknown Web 4.3.3 2012 03 05 - - Traceback (most recent ca...
Agenda - 2:30pm Start
Accepting minutes from last meeting
Welcome Roger Leigh
Sprint Bug Report (5 mins)
- Closed bugs: 19 (1 blocker, 1 critical, 8 major, 9 minor)
- New bugs: 8 (5 major, 3 minor)
- Total bugs: 89 (3 blocker, 8 critical, 28 major, 50 minor)
Sprint Tickets/bugs
Logo Redesigns: Liza's presentation (30 mins)
Multiple groups in web vv insight (5 mins - hopefully)
- Discussed in the office on Thursday. No consensus on two different workflows:
- Web: rebase tree see screen-shots
- Insight: Add User, Add Group, Switch Group.
- Need to decide ASAP if we're OK with the clients being different. If not, what do we go with?
Any other business (<5 mins)
Attending
* Chris, Josh (notes), Andrew, Colin, Emma, Jean-Marie, Liza, Melissa, Ola, Roger, Scott, Sebastien, Stick, Will, Dom (14:02 UK), Curtis (14:32 UK)
Housekeeping Pre-Meeting - 2pm Start
Matters Arising (<10 mins)
- Josh: explain 2nd action point (for Jean-Marie) DONE
- Jean-Marie: Make a list of all the deprecated items in 4.4 for discussion next week. DONE see 8017
- Jean-marie: Reply to Rapa asking for whole code DONE
- Melissa: Reply to Jeeep DONE
- Melissa: QA Handle #4232, (#4228, #4227 known issue) DONE
- Ola: Contact re: http://qa.openmicroscopy.org.uk/qa/feedback/4229/ PENDING
Email and Forum Review - checked at (5 mins)
Email -
- Marek Cebecauer, [ome-users] Ubuntu 12.04 CHRIS
- Juergen Helmers, [ome-users] importing HCS data as a screen MELISSA
Forums -
- dballvt Re: Uploading from MATLAB Jean-Marie
- Code forum review - none pending
QA -
linkID Status User/email Type Created Selected file Comment Error 4243 new a.ostrowski@... Insight 4.3.3 2012 03 12 - Was loading yet another large ... java.lang.Exception: org.... 4240 new m.spitaler@i... Insight 4.3.2 2012 03 12 - - java.lang.Exception: java... 4229 new unknown Web 4.3.3 2012 03 05 - - Traceback (most recent ca...
Done - 14:05 UK
Agenda - 2:30pm Start
Accepting minutes from last meeting
- DONE
Welcome Roger Leigh
- Working with Melissa on Bio-Formats things
Sprint Bug Report (5 mins) - Started 14:31 UK
- Closed bugs: 19 (1 blocker, 1 critical, 8 major, 9 minor)
- New bugs: 8 (5 major, 3 minor)
- Total bugs: 89 (3 blocker, 8 critical, 28 major, 50 minor)
- Emma: creeping
- Josh: “closed” isn’t really trustable because of PR interactions.
Sprint Tickets/bugs - Started 14:33 UK
-
Jean-Marie: milestone page updated
- main activity has been the schema release
- separate branch
- no database changes for the moment
- Chris working on codegen.
- 2-3 bugs, then we can start reviewing
-
Jean-Marie preparing script testing
- trying to reduce issues with changing ROIs
- tests are compiling, but no database yet
-
Andrew:
- All changes made
- But need to up the schema
- Chris: would be good if InProgress were to present.
- Discuss offline
-
Jean-Marie
- pushed ability for users to downgrade the version of OME-TIFF
- probably most useful in commercial setting.
-
Will: looked at video
- Option should not be “downgrade” but save as version (cF. Word)
- Jean-Marie: yes, wording has changed
- Logic will be pushed down to Bio-Formats eventually.
- Andrew: also a link from that box to documentation.
-
Jean-Marie: milestone page updated
Logo Redesigns: Liza's presentation (30 mins) - Started 14:38 UK
-
Jean-Marie: could we also include OME-TIFF?
- Chris: they’re extensible, so sure we can add another.
- Not possible to have symbol and name in 24x24
- Jean-Marie: Icon and text like “TIFF” when not much space.
- Liza: additional text that’s needed should be fine.
- Intention in style guide is that the icon should be able to stand on it’s own and stand for “OME” in limited space.
-
Curtis:
- like the logos and the fact that they are co-related
- Liza: email from Curtis was very helpful
-
Dom: done a great job; very strong
-
prefer set1
- if you take away the names, seem to resonate better
-
prefer set1
- Andrew * advantage of hexagon is that it prevents it from looking like “SScifio”
-
Colin: problem with 3 color OME in OMERO is that it seems to be close
- Will: also a problem with RO having one color
- Andrew: seems like every other product has to have an “O”
-
Ola: for standalone symbol, works better with hexagon; but with word, is better without
- Chris: that’s why hexagon is tilted
-
Andrew: background is transparent or white?
- transparent?
-
Emma: is the spacing the same on OME and OMERO?
- smaller, because not final.
- Dom: any branch needs unique typeface, symbol, and palette
-
Andrew: font to be used for other text or reserved for logos/names for applications?
- can use it for H1 and H2; chose google font for CSS
- wouldn’t use it for regular reading text
- just for blocks of content
-
Dom: paired typeface for smaller?
- Liza: choose something complementary
- haven’t looked into it yet.e
-
Ola: bigger space between symbol and text would work better?
- Liza: will explore.
- Emma: think that will help.
-
Chris: did you look at any separators other than whitespace
- Liza: just whitespace, intended to just do it by the same amount
- Suggestions?
- Chris: Possibility of a vertical/horizontal
- Andrew: logo larger?
-
Andrew: for OME logo, permissible to have large hexagon with small letters for a squarish logo?
- Liza: can do that as a separate version of the logo
- versions to accomadate space
- Andrew: every now and then you have something that’s needed as a square
- Liza: looks a little bit like the Hexagon is supposed to fit within the “M”
-
Scott: color pallete, will any of these be used in clients/web-style for more unity in color scheme
- Yes!
-
Curtis: like set 2 unilaterally; hexagons add a level of distinction
- Curtis: Several similar logos to the planes
- Jean-Marie: perhaps bioformats and scifio as one icon
- Andrew: would argue for keep names of our products from our name.
- Melissa: agree.
-
Chris: have this debate at a later date
- but there’s a large portion of the community that doesn’t recognize “OMERO”
-
Josh:
- scifio logo is incredibly powerful (would put it up against many commercial ones)
- feels like 3 different brands; a bit disconcerting.
- possibly drop the “OMERO” branding?
-
Andrew: hexagons in set 2; use broken hexagon around all them in plain navy
- would be different from “OME”
- i.e. products would all be broken.
- Liza: certainly possible
-
Emma: overlapping colors on scifio
- what happens to S if you don’t see the overlapping? (only have 3 colors)
- Liza: scifio in BW you’d only see the shapes (outlines)
- for t-shirts, would choose solid colors for each part of the plane
- shouldn’t differ too much. wouldn’t look transparent.
- Andrew: print for 4 screens to one that needs 6 screens (cost!)
- Dom: could get away without transparency
-
Jean-Marie: second round for next week? List:
- greater separation from the symbol
- solidify the colors / eliminate transparency
- other separator
- split hexagons
- (would rather present sooner rather than later)
- Dom: you make the decision
-
Jean-Marie: could we also include OME-TIFF?
Multiple groups in web vv insight (5 mins - hopefully) - Started 15:15 UK
-
Points:
-
Discussed in the office on Thursday. No consensus on two different workflows:
- Web: rebase tree see screen-shots
- Insight: Add User, Add Group, Switch Group.
- Need to decide ASAP if we're OK with the clients being different. If not, what do we go with?
-
Discussed in the office on Thursday. No consensus on two different workflows:
-
Will:
- How much can we allow the clients to diverge?
-
Each is consistent within itself
-
Dom’s tree that you can browse down; double-click to choose the root of the tree
- by default, you see all groups/experimenters/data until you filter
- you can only filter for current level
-
insight rooted in same place, but at any time we can:
- add user to the view
- add group to the view
- switch group
-
Dom’s tree that you can browse down; double-click to choose the root of the tree
-
Jean-Marie: previous feedback. some groups want to see everything; some want to see one group at a time.
- have both of these in insight and web.
- need ability to decide on institution basis.
- Will: no problem making that consistent.
- Jean-Marie: next is to dive in. new concept.
- At group user level, we need some configuration options.
-
Dom: rebasing option you choose when you use it.
- Jean-Marie: changes current behavior; changes the meaning in double click
- in insight, it’s open (“browse”) on double-click
- should run it with a lot of sessions to see what works.
- used to have something similar to swap between views in insight
- people didn’t like it; perhaps how it was implemented.
-
Will: if we try to discuss details it will take too long
- question: do we allow diverging.
- Dom: ideally you’d have cohesion
- Emma: slippery slope once you allow divergence.
-
Josh: vote for not diverging until we make a conscious decision
- etc.
-
Jean-Marie: rebase is interesting, but put on hold for the second
- too close to release
- start investigating
- Dom: how hard to implement in insight?
-
Jean-Marie: not a matter of time. Just one person. Code freeze in month. Second person would be great. Quite challenging. Multiplies the number of bugs.
- Emma: everyone wants to explore but isn’t top priority.
- Dom: then leave it out of 4.4 if we have to make a decision, but strongly advise to keep exploring. Want to know conclusively if users take to it. Polish it up and get it in front of users.
- Dom: without rebasing that tree is going to become massive; so if we don’t have rebase, we should go down the insight route. Have to make that decision.
-
Chris: need to explore sorting
- server v. client
- insight is already name or date
- creation date is different from acquired date!
- if creation date is missing, can be confusing to just use import date.
-
Dom: decision
- no rebasing
- use insight methodology
- But Will, finish off what we’ve started
- Emma: should be testing it.
- Andrew: rebasing is the way I’d rather work.
-
Points:
Any other business (<5 mins) - Started 15:33 UK
- Nothing.
Action
* Ola: Contact re: http://qa.openmicroscopy.org.uk/qa/feedback/4229/
* J-M: matlab forum
* Chris: ubuntu email
* Melissa: HCS email
* Andrew: look into removing “In-Progress”
* Liza: iterate on logos