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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Add Loan Items - table hard to parse #5564

Closed
ebraker opened this issue Jan 28, 2023 · 50 comments
Closed

Add Loan Items - table hard to parse #5564

ebraker opened this issue Jan 28, 2023 · 50 comments
Labels
Display/Interface I don't like the way Arctos looks or it isn't working for me aesthetically. Function-Transactions Priority-High (Needed for work) High because this is causing a delay in important collection work..
Milestone
Active Development

Comments

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor

ebraker commented Jan 28, 2023

I think it is difficult to add items to loans in the new results form since the catalog record #, taxon, and part name are so far away from the checkbox. Here's the old form where the "add" button is very proximal to the data pieces I need to see to be able to grab the right thing:

image

...versus the current form I just held e a ruler to my monitor to make sure I'm selecting the right part for the right specimen:
image

Any ideas or can we put this as an agenda item for a UI meeting?

@campmlc @ccicero have you had issues?
@Jegelewicz Jegelewicz added this to the Needs Discussion milestone Jan 28, 2023
@Jegelewicz Jegelewicz added Priority-High (Needed for work) High because this is causing a delay in important collection work.. Function-Transactions Display/Interface I don't like the way Arctos looks or it isn't working for me aesthetically. labels Jan 28, 2023
@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

I have never been a fan of the teeny tiny checkboxes....

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Jan 28, 2023 via email

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jan 28, 2023

If the request isn't for like 19 JS libraries trying to play with each other in a sometimes-public form, I'm receptive!

I can put columns in whatever order very easily.

I can make pick boxes narrower, but it'll be harder to see what's what. (I think that's mostly from MSB comboparts so maybe that's a very small price to pay considering the involved data?)

I'm up for WHATEVER as a way to select a part - suggest something better than the checks?

Striping (instead of getting the ruler out) doesn't generally play nice with sortable tables, but I've got a new CSS trick I can try before I insist ya'll pick one.

If there's something obvious it can be done first, then toss whatever's left at a UI meetiing?

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

Striping

A good first step!

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

We can talk check boxes at UI

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Jan 28, 2023

There are two things that the original 'add item' form does that would be handy to replicate:

  1. Clearly distinguish one catalog record from another (see images at top of the issue - catalog records were chunked into separate tables in the old form and super easy to tell apart from the next). The current form doesn't make the change from one catalog number to the next obvious (stripes may help, but the color change would need to correspond to the catnum instead of changing every-other-row, e.g., a record with three parts would need the same stripe color for three rows before changing to a different stripe color).

  2. The button or checkbox should sit next to the part name to make it easy to pick out for records that have multiple parts. My suggested order would be: catnum, scientificname, part, button/checkbox, subsample, item remark, etc. etc.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jan 31, 2023

talk check boxes at UI

We should do everything that's possible to do here, where everyone can participate and has plenty of time to consider how this might affect their workflow.

a record with three parts

Doesn't need "substriping" - top/middle/bottom is easy - but a record with...

 select max(c) from (select derived_from_cat_item,count(*) c from specimen_part group by derived_from_cat_item having count(*) > 20) x;
 max 
-----
 200

200 parts is another matter.

How sortable do things need to be, and how "columnar" do things need to be? One possibility would involve nested tables, the outer of which would sort by 1:1 (ish, for now) things like GUID and ID, and the inner (which would have different column widths on each record) would sort within a catalog record by part name, condition, etc.

Or if sorting isn't at all important then perhaps I could switch to some sort of CSS rather than tables, which would allow me to keep everything in line (if we can - or should - coerce this into an equal number of columns per record, and perhaps at the expense of 999 records carrying a lot of whitespace to accommodate that one verbose thing).

I'd much rather stick with tables - they are generally more predictable data containers than anything else - but if this demands something tables can't deliver then I'm up for trying something else.

button or checkbox

Those lead to very different functionality. The button handles one part at a time (because that's all the old form could realistically accommodate). Click the wrong button, and you need to go off to some other form, undo your mistake - perhaps noticed from something 5 records further in - then come back and fix it. The checkbox is part of a "set it all up, review, then save" approach, where you can go correct that previous thing before DOING anything. I can go either way, but I think the "as a batch" approach is probably a lot closer to reflecting what actually happens.

part, [otherstuff] subsample

Doesn't make sense to me to separate those - this form allows the long-requested 'subsample a skeleton as a rib' functionality, seems to me that the 'source' and 'result' parts should be (very) near each other.

I've also heard that encumbrances are the most important thing here, so probably should be 'leftward'....

And attributes will be the most important thing (175 of those 200 parts might be liver samples, some of them preserved better than others, some with more remaining volume, etc.) so many/most records so those should be nearest the widget....

Do we really need all those containerIDs in there?

If 5 flattened attributes really sufficient? (And I'm not necessarily suggesting flattening more: what if a record has 700 attributes?)

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Jan 31, 2023

I think this is going to require a separate discussion. I just tried to use the new form to add 13 items to a loan, and could not do so. The new form in its current state is not functional. At the very least, we need CatNum, Other ID, SciName, Part Disposition, preservation, and Part BARCODE visible as the first columns to the left, followed by subsample y/n and subsample part name. Right now, to find a barcode, I have to scroll so far to the right I see nothing else and lose the select tool. Also, it appears that in order to subsample, currently the user must write in the name of the subsampled part for each selection, rather than just selecting yes/no as we used to, with an option of renaming. I could technically write in part names for a small loan, but that should not be necessary if the subsampled part name is the same as the parent.
We either need a solution that looks and functions like our previous form, or we need some drastic change that will allow the same functionality.

@cjconroy
Copy link

I am similarly confused. I am trying to add two skulls to a loan. There is only a button that says add all checked parts to loan. I can't do that because one of the parts in the table is a duplicate of one of the skulls from a previous, closed loan. Even after checking the boxes, there does not seem to be a way to add those items to the loan! What is going on?

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jan 31, 2023

This is the separate discussion, and the form is very much functional.

We can't discuss what column order is until we decide if there are columns or not. Please see above comments, I don't think we can progress without that discussion.

not be necessary if the subsampled part name is the same as the parent

How would I know that? (I could potentially pre-fill the new part name with the old and users can change it as necessary?)

@cjconroy I think maybe you're on the old form? Screenshots would be very helpful.

@cjconroy
Copy link

looks like this to me
Uploading Screenshot 2023-01-31 at 9.44.05 AM.png…

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Jan 31, 2023 via email

@cjconroy
Copy link

OK, my bad complaining about the button tool. However, is there a way to avoid seeing duplicate skulls from previous closed transactions?

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jan 31, 2023

make checkboxes bigger somehow?

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Jan 31, 2023

don't allow checkbox if part is already on loan

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 2, 2023

prioritize striping over sorting

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 3, 2023

Are all of these necessary?

began_date,
ended_date,
verbatim_date,
received_date, (from accession)

Anything else that can be removed or should be added?

@ccicero
Copy link

ccicero commented Feb 3, 2023

I would keep 'verbatim_date' but am fine with removing the others.

What about locality info - higher geog and spec loc? seems important to have that as well.

I'm not sure if I can make the meeting next week but @atrox10 will be there for MVZ (+ MK). My personal preference would be this order:
Add to Loan
CatNum
Scientific Name
Part
Attr1 (preservation)
Disposition
Loan
locality info - ???
VerbatimDate
all the part location fields
then the rest

Can we hide blank columns (e.g., if no values in Attr2-5)?

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 3, 2023

locality info

I can add whatever, but that's going to get real complicated real fast so I'll need details - just priority, all, maybe #5594 (or various other locality attributes), ????

order

I've been hearing that the old form was liked and sorting is secondary, so I'm rebuilding to follow that idea, with the parts nested in a cell of the record's row. There are essentially two column sorts, one for 'record stuff' and another for 'part stuff.'

Attr1 (preservation)

That is not a valid association - attr1 can be most anything in certain situations. I could dedicate columns to types or something, but I think it would end up with a lot more columns, and a lot more whitespace to scroll past for some collections (or even 'subcollections' - tissues vs bones).

hide blank c

Not easily, and I think without somehow backing up and going in some other direction. (That's definitely not a 'no' but I can't quite wrap my head around how I'd do it at the moment.) I've been trying to keep them somewhat tabular (so they line up with other "subtables") - even letting them stretch to fit data hurt my brain, I think table-like is easier to see. The idea is that importance decreases as you go right, so you can just not scroll over there unless you've got a reason to.

Here's what it looks like at the moment - timely feedback most appreciated.

Screenshot 2023-02-03 at 10 03 09 AM

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

That looks a lot better already. I think Part name should be the field directly next to the checkbox, then subsample. It sounds like @campmlc needs barcode, so I'd put that somewhere visible (maybe following itemdispn?).

I personally don't need any of the date fields immediately to the left, so my preference would be:
catnum
sciname
then the Add block with checkbox and partname first)
etc
etc

don't allow checkbox if part is already on loan

This will not work for media loans - we need to be able to add e.g. CT scans to multiple concurrent loans (which I generally do multiple times a week!)

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 3, 2023

checkbox-partname-subsample is fine/reasonable.

I don't think breaking one of the 21 container-columns out all by itself is reasonable. (Do we need all that there? Would plpath be better? plpath and the container-containing-the-part barcode?? Just the one barcode???)

catnum
sciname
then the Add

I think @ccicero would put a bunch of locality stuff in there. Maybe I'll see if I can figure out how to let users hide columns without making this thing so complicated that it can't be maintained??

not work for media loans

That's more compelling than whatever the other argument was (@AJLinn maybe??). I'll see if I can make the checkbox red or something when the part's already on loan - bueno?

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Feb 3, 2023 via email

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Feb 3, 2023 via email

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 3, 2023

I'm assuming the order on the old form worked for most people (?). By the time we are adding specific parts (e.g., screen #2 of "add items to loan"), we've already selected the exact catalog records we are working with and used relevant date/locality info on the search result page to guide us, so I sort of think all of that other catalog record metadata can be pushed right. The metadata are still there a scroll away, but the cat num, scientific_name, and parts/barcodes/subsample etc. fields are most relevant by the time you are adding parts. But I could be wrong, so if it is simple to hide columns, great!

image

make the checkbox red

Works for me

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 3, 2023

don't need any of the other
PartsTableDownload path.

Awesome, I'm I'm zapping it.

bulk tools

You're going to have to be a LOT more specific before I can write code to that (and there's a bulkloader, this is pretty explicitly the not-bulk thing?)

old form worked for most people

Nah, everybody hated it - until it changed....

I think I've got a workable recipe to hide columns, and if I can zap 21 checkboxes before they exist maybe even a usable workable recipe!

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 6, 2023

The new tool is great! Way more functional. Thank you!

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

Why is this a hard No?

Remove the itemDispn column and instead add a method to "change all checked to" and select the disposition

Isn't that how the old form worked? I don't really do loans, so I don't know for sure, but if it was, it seems like everyone was enjoying that (at least those in the meeting yesterday agreed it was the way to go). I just want to make sure we explore all of the options.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 8, 2023

Why is this a hard No?

It would involve updating things behind the curtain.

Isn't that how the old form worked?

No, I think it forced everything to 'on loan' and there are several use cases (exhibits, that thing I don't really want to know about involving media) where that's not appropriate or desirable. This isn't just an attempt to re-create a form that had severe limitations, I'm relatively sure we need this explicit by part for several reasons even if we could find a way to make the proverbial curtain a bit more transparent. I can make the dropdown skinnier if that's the problem, but see above - I can't do that while also including super verbose labels. (And the reasoning behind those scares me - this form is not and never will be safe for people who won't read the notes. It's a complicated form doing a complicated thing, and whatever your assumptions are they're probably not the same as mine so I've spelled mine out. I have NO idea what to do about that, but it's not something that can be entirely ignored safely either.)

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Feb 8, 2023 via email

@ewommack
Copy link

ewommack commented Feb 8, 2023

No, I think it forced everything to 'on loan' and there are several use cases (exhibits, that thing I don't really want to know about involving media) where that's not appropriate or desirable.

I think what we heard about yesterday was that there are a number of collections that use loans to help keep track of use of objects as they move around both digitally and physically. Having things just either go on loan or not was limiting those collections ability to track and use the loan forms, and now with the ability to change to more disposition types the forms is much more versatile for them.
@AJLinn - did I get that right?

@dustymc dustymc closed this as completed Feb 10, 2023
@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 11, 2023 •
edited
Loading

The old form (which is still accessible) did not include the item disposition, only the object disposition, so it was never confusing:

Image

Adding items however, only changed the disposition to "on loan" (I assume users had to manually adjust the disposition for "other" use cases). I agree we need to get rid of that column and just have a "set disposition to [whatever] for all checked parts" up at the top (default could be 'loan' or 'pick')

@ebraker ebraker reopened this Feb 11, 2023
@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 11, 2023

did not include the item disposition

... because it forced them all, kicking and screaming, to 'on loan' - a simplicity which Arctos has now outgrown.

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 11, 2023 •
edited
Loading

was editing my comment as you wrote:

Adding items however, only changed the disposition to "on loan" (I assume users had to manually adjust the disposition for "other" use cases). I agree we need to get rid of that column and just have a "set disposition to [whatever] for all checked parts" up at the top of the table (default could be 'loan' or 'pick').

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 12, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Now the bulk disposition update functionality is available (thank you!). So can we get rid of the column in the table (it is still confusing) and just make that grey disposition update field yellow up top? e.g.,

image

I know we can hide columns but I'm still having to scroll to see my part conditions and part remarks. Removing the Item disposition column and empty space would be really useful, e.g.:

Image

vs. (my current view with all the columns possible hidden...I still can't see what I need):

Image

If NOT, can we at least have the item disposition value defaulted to "select disposition" in the table to avoid the confusing "on loan" value?

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Feb 12, 2023

Agree with @ebraker

@ewommack
Copy link

@AJLinn said the ItemDisp column was really helpful for her collection. We really need to hear from other collections that use the form too.

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Feb 13, 2023 via email

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 13, 2023

really need to hear from other collections

We have heard from there, there was a meeting, the column is necessary.

@dustymc dustymc closed this as completed Feb 13, 2023
@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 13, 2023

@ewommack the item disposition is separate from the object disposition, which is what was requested. The functionality of the tool would be present.

Agree with Mariel re:

Is that still the case if there is a bulk select loan disposition at the
top of the page?

@dustymc sorry but this is not working for me so I am reopening this issue.

  1. Can we put the item disposition tool above? Or can you explain why this isn't possible?
    image
  2. If not (and I really hope Deleting relationships needs a better warning message. #1 is possible), can the default for this menu be set to "select disposition" vs "on loan" to avoid confusion?
  3. Can we make this table have draggable columns? I need to reorder since I can't see the actual columns I need which are Part condition, Part remarks, and Object disposition - I need to know if something is not stable enough to go on loan or on loan/used up/deaccessioned/missing to make transaction decisions (and I might not filter out on loan if doing a media loan where simultaneous borrowing is possible).

There's also blank columns taking up space - can this go away (I have two essential columns that I have to scroll to see):
image

@ebraker ebraker reopened this Feb 13, 2023
@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 13, 2023

item disposition is separate from the object disposition,

What does this mean? There is only one disposition, the form shows current and 'will become' states.

can you explain why this isn't possible

Because various people (Including you! "and I might not filter out on loan if doing a media loan where simultaneous borrowing is possible" ????????????????) have suggested that not all things going on loan need to become 'on loan'

can the default for this menu be set to "select disposition" vs "on loan"

I suppose, but it'll be an extra click to 'on loan' for much/most usage.

draggable columns?

Not easily. We can, but I think not while reusing any code.

blank columns taking up space

I need more than a tiny peek, shouldn't be like that.

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor Author

ebraker commented Feb 13, 2023 •
edited
Loading

@dustymc I understand why this field is important and I am not asking to get rid of it. 'Item disposition' and 'object disposition' are separate in this case, because thy are represented in two different columns available on this form, both of which take up space (the distinction is not immed clear to users: object disposition = existing disp and item disp = future disposition/what you are changing your objects to, e.g. putting on loan, exhibit, etc).

My ask is not to do away with the item disp (change to) column. Ideally this column is not part of the table, but instead works as a tool that sits directly above the table (yellow/required), where users can batch change checked records, e.g., "set all items to [selected disposition status]" so people don't have to click individually. This would be similar to the deprecated "add all [select] parts to loan". This would remove the confusing element of having two different 'disposition' columns on the form, one that might say 'in collection' while the other is defaulted to 'on loan' for the same record before users click save.

draggable columns?

Not easily. We can, but I think not while reusing any code.

That would be great

I need more than a tiny peek, shouldn't be like that.

Does this help?

image

@dustymc dustymc closed this as completed Feb 14, 2023
@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 14, 2023

bold labels in docs (top)
possible to highlight on mouseover header (not while reusing code...)
can we stack disposition? (@ebraker had mostly stacked-something stretching lines out so would mostly be using wasted space)

  • current disposition
  • update to disposition

@dustymc dustymc reopened this Feb 14, 2023
@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Feb 15, 2023

Screenshot 2023-02-14 at 5 02 47 PM

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented Feb 15, 2023 via email

@ebraker ebraker mentioned this issue Feb 23, 2023
Closed
@dustymc dustymc closed this as completed Feb 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Display/Interface I don't like the way Arctos looks or it isn't working for me aesthetically. Function-Transactions Priority-High (Needed for work) High because this is causing a delay in important collection work..
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Active Development
Development

No branches or pull requests
7 participants
@ccicero @dustymc @Jegelewicz @cjconroy @ebraker @campmlc @ewommack