[Qgis-developer] Plugins: "standalone" versus more tightly integrated

[Nathan Woodrow]

Hey,

Yeah, this was mainly just a side comment from watching Tom's talk and how
integrated some plugins should be as part of the UI and if that makes the
general UX better or worse.

It's not always relevant in every context but I have started to become a
fan of reusing what is provided in core vs custom for each plugin, but
this depends on the plugin and the user.

Something to keep in mind at least.  As most people know I'm not a fan of
dialogs, even non-model ones so always on the look out for better
integration with
the main interface.

- Nathan

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Tom Chadwin <tom.chadwin at nnpa.org.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Matthias
>
> Yes, I'm talking about qgis2web, but thought the discussion was generally
> relevant. I'm not sure I agree with the opt-in approach. I think either it
> stays as it is, or the single dialog disappears, and it is embedded as
> Nathan suggests. Users could then configure the qgis2web panes in their
> QGIS
> UI layout, but I don't think the single dialog would remain.
>
> Thanks for the thoughts
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> -----
> Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon
> --
> View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.
> nabble.com/Plugins-standalone-versus-more-tightly-
> integrated-tp5295643p5295650.html
> Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20161114/3cdd6d1a/attachment-0001.html>