Navigating UX: Still want more?
If you have any questions about UX that weren’t answered in this article, feel free to reach out to your IBM TRIRIGA representative or business partner. In the meantime, here are some more background questions and answers from my previous articles that might help to fill in the gaps or give you a better idea of what we’re trying to do. In any case, stay tuned!
|Do we have more articles like this?||Currently, we have several articles in the series. They include: “Introducing UX”, “Implementing UX”, “Extending UX”, and “Navigating UX”. More might appear later.|
|What does UX mean?||The standard definition of “UX” is user experience. But for simplicity, these articles will occasionally refer to the new MVC-based TRIRIGA UX framework as “UX”.|
|What happens to our existing applications?||Our existing applications and forms will continue to work as they did before MVC.
Unlike advanced integrations that require customization, the new renders will be “bolt-on” views that can be quickly added or removed, and will still use our existing application data and workflows.
|What happens to our existing user documentation?||Our existing documentation will continue to support our existing applications as they did before MVC.
But new MVC-based documentation could be rendered within the same flexible hierarchy of form-layout components as custom “info components”. Unlike HTML topics or PDF files in our external IBM Knowledge Center, this content could be accessed within the new framework.
|What happens to our existing customers?||Because the new views will be “bolt-on” interfaces that are “bolted onto” existing applications, customers who don’t choose the new MVC framework won’t be affected.
But for customers who choose the new framework, results could vary depending on how new role-based interfaces are applied and how much the application is customized.
Fortunately, a flexible MVC model would offer customers a more efficient customization and upgrade strategy. For example, customers could add their own business objects instead of adding fields to our shipped business objects. This scenario would be easier to track during upgrade.
My many thanks to Ryan Koppelman, Mike Herbert, Chris Jones, Raphael Marcondes, Tracy Fletcher, Casey Cantwell, Kenny To, and the rest of the IBM TRIRIGA software team for their valuable source material, feedback, and insights. The finer details of this article are subject to change. Also, my views don’t necessarily reflect those of the team or IBM in general.
Jay Manaloto is an IBM TRIRIGA information developer. A technical writer since 1996, he enjoyed writing for TRIRIGA from 2005 until its acquisition by IBM in 2011. Now a member of the IBM TRIRIGA software team under the IBM Watson Internet of Things business unit in 2016, Jay also runs several blogs including TRIRIGAFEEDIA.