rebuild specimensearch UI

[dustymc]

Replace all dynamic tables with datatables, retire jtables.

[dustymc]

See eg https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2741

There was some talk of customizing the specimen results table. The library we use for that hasn't been updated since 2014, which is ANTIQUE for front-end software. It makes little sense to invest in an obsolete product with serious limitations.

https://arctos.database.museum/place.cfm is using datatables. Along with modern and maintained (updated a couple months ago) software, it's also a much more interactive environment than the current specimensearch-->POST--specimenresults; suggest we adopt similar functionality when we rebuild other stuff, which is also a great opportunity to address https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3273

[dustymc]

Expansion of https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-756497157

Make forms dynamic; never leave the form (URL) you're searching on (but perhaps toggle visibility or something) - eliminate all 'back button doesn't work' and 'the "use last" library hates the "fancy multiselect" library' kinds of problems, eliminate the 'refine widget,' allow better search form customization. Make searching Arctos a much more interactive process, rather than the current "enter something and hope it works on the next form" (mitigated by a bunch of complicated buttons and widgets that themselves don't always work).

This is coming up more and more often, so

1. Changing title
2. This needs discussed. Is there a better way? Can we figure out a framework, or something that will make both this and going further easier, first? Etc. etc. etc.
3. I'm removing the low priority; needs prioritized by AWG, not sure what that should be, but no longer low

I'm not sure what to do about Milestones - I know how to do the technical stuff, could very much use some help on the people-end.

[Jegelewicz]

I'll jump in and add high priority. I simplified search page would be good for both regular Arctos users and the general public.

Let's not leave this out - https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3273#issuecomment-738948369

I know how to do the technical stuff, could very much use some help on the people-end.

Maybe this is a case where technical stuff leads the discussion - if you build it they will come? Maybe just seeing what you could do would inspire the people to comment. I know it sucks, but I think the bulkload tool experience has shown me that until people have something they can use, it is hard for them to imagine what they might like or not about it.

[dustymc]

Thanks, yes we need to round up all related Issues if we're going to get serious about this.

As above, the "place" search form is the simplest possible implementation of what I have in mind. Search for stuff, it creates/changes results without removing anything from the search. Change one of your search parameters, leave the other 742 of them alone, click a button, get new data. Interactive, yay.

"Icing" - the kinds of things become possible in such an approach- could include customizing the search form without getting a bunch of extra junk or having to start over, perhaps hiding the things you don't want to see (I'm not quite sure that's predictable, but we can try), maybe even clicking stuff in the data to change search parameters and get new data.

[Jegelewicz]

So what I get from this is that I could search, get some results, then search with some extra parameters but ONLY on the results of my previous search? I think everyone would like that...

[dustymc]

then search with some extra parameters but ONLY on the results of my previous search?

Not quite, I think. You'd still be searching everything, but adding a parameter would, I believe, result in that functionality. The big UI change is that you'd just scroll up (or click 'show search pane' or something) to add that parameter, not need to worry about going back or 'use last values' getting mangled or needing to remember what you were looking at or wishing you had a way to copy two things without losing sight of your results or.....

[ewommack]

I like it! It would make it really helpful for when I jump between taxon groups in searches, or want to refine my geographic locality.

[dustymc]

We need SSL before proceeding; this should just use the API, that's very limited without a way to implement and test authentication.

https://github.com/ArctosDB/internal/issues/90

[dustymc]

This should come after https://github.com/ArctosDB/internal/issues/211 (eg bootstrap - and probably other stuff - has datatables wrappers, that'll influence look and feel)

[dustymc]

First todo: upgrade the API to accept username and password

[dustymc]

This is mostly functional at https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/cat_records.cfm

1. It's using the 'normal' Arctos API, which should be a significant improvement to a bunch of things for a bunch of reasons
2. The API (v2) now deals with authentication, which should open up a bunch of possibilities
3. The UI is completely responsive and should be functional on any device

The UI isn't quite as magical as I'd hoped, and I'm somewhat regretting building it in css grid - I think it would be better in flexbox, but I'm not sure that's a silver bullet either. The code is clean so it should be easy to do WHATEVER - I'll do something at some point if nobody else jumps in first, but this might be a good place to talk about designers or more API-based UIs or WHATEVER.

Failing that, I designed the framework to accept a sort of profile. I can easily build customized search (hide, show, or show and fill fields) and results (desired columns in specified order) if anyone wants to test drive that.

• https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/cat_records.cfm?sp=one_column is the one current profile
• https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/cat_records.cfm?sp=one_column&cat_num=1 is the profile with a 'profile field' prepopulated
• https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/cat_records.cfm?sp=one_column&cat_num=1&guid_prefix=MVZ:Bird&taxon_name - call it an extension

Lots of possibility but I'm not going to do more unless there's a use case.

This also introduces the idea of query cost determining what's returned. Very cheap queries will return many rows, the most expensive might return only one. That is currently here...

I'm very interested to hear clever UI ideas.

There's lots more to do, there's still some debug code and such floating around, but the core should be approaching solidity and feedback would be very appreciated - I'd like to catch any huge oversights before I write too much code over the top of them.

[sharpphyl]

I'm getting errors and no results. User error?? Overall, I like the approach, especially since it mirrors the new geography/place search function.

[Jegelewicz]

Me too, just opened https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/cat_records.cfm?sp=one_column&cat_num=1

[Jegelewicz]

Just one basic thing - this doesn't appear any different than Arctos does now. Improving functionality is great, but I'd also like to see some design improvement. This is not what Dusty does - we need to hire someone to help with this.

[sharpphyl]

Now I can get a search for one record, but not other searches.

[dustymc]

design improvement

???????????

Error handling should be better.

[dustymc]

This is in production and linked from the old search page. I'll make the new form the only option in a week or two, or when I stop getting feedback.

[DerekSikes]

I'm very worried about this & would like the old search form to remain (perhaps linked from the new after the switch) as a needed back up for those who can't figure out how to find what they need with the new but NEED to do searches and don't have time to wait for you to help.

This could allow us to gain familiarity with the new form without removing the old entirely - we would be encouraged to learn the new form simply by it being default.

I'm sure I'll have tons of problems - for example, I do not see how to get results as summary.

And why are there two customize search and submit query buttons? There should only be one of each. This is normal GUI best practices.

-Derek

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 4:00 PM dustymc @.***> wrote:

This is in production and linked from the old search page. I'll make the new form the only option in a week or two, or when I stop getting feedback.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1331510430, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFNUM5M7W7ZLVBADXXB6C3WK2RMPANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects, Professor of Entomology University of Alaska Museum (UAM), University of Alaska Fairbanks 1962 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 @.*** phone: 907-474-6278 he/him/his University of Alaska Museum https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/

• search 357,704 digitized arthropod records http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us

[DerekSikes]

I will add that it has taken YEARS to gain the familiarity I have with the old search form and this sort of switch is like telling an expert bicyclist that now they must travel by air balloon.

How do I specify a search in which the specific epithet is nonull? I use that a lot

-Derek

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 4:17 PM Derek Sikes @.***> wrote:

I'm very worried about this & would like the old search form to remain (perhaps linked from the new after the switch) as a needed back up for those who can't figure out how to find what they need with the new but NEED to do searches and don't have time to wait for you to help.

This could allow us to gain familiarity with the new form without removing the old entirely - we would be encouraged to learn the new form simply by it being default.

I'm sure I'll have tons of problems - for example, I do not see how to get results as summary.

And why are there two customize search and submit query buttons? There should only be one of each. This is normal GUI best practices.

-Derek

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 4:00 PM dustymc @.***> wrote:

This is in production and linked from the old search page. I'll make the new form the only option in a week or two, or when I stop getting feedback.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1331510430, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFNUM5M7W7ZLVBADXXB6C3WK2RMPANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects, Professor of Entomology University of Alaska Museum (UAM), University of Alaska Fairbanks 1962 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 @.*** phone: 907-474-6278 he/him/his University of Alaska Museum https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/

• search 357,704 digitized arthropod records http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects, Professor of Entomology University of Alaska Museum (UAM), University of Alaska Fairbanks 1962 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 @.*** phone: 907-474-6278 he/him/his University of Alaska Museum https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/

• search 357,704 digitized arthropod records http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us

[dustymc]

The old form can stay around for a while, but it (or the technology under it) will meet its end at some point and that's always better when planned.

I do not see how to get results as summary.

That will be yet another new form.

And why are there two customize search and submit query buttons? There should only be one of each. This is normal GUI best practices.

Same reason as there are on the old form, it can be REALLY big? I can't see any problem with multiples, but we can banish that idea and add to https://handbook.arctosdb.org/how_to/developer-guide.html if you want to start that discussion.

telling an expert bicyclist that now they must travel by air balloon.

This is way more complicated than any balloon! (100-ish search options, 350-ish orderable results options, bajillions of ways to assemble that.)

How do I

Same as always. There's nothing new here, you just have a lot more control over what you see. I'll add the NOTNULL shortcut.

[sharpphyl]

Can you use the same number of entries to show as in the current search. Right now, the max is 100 and I frequently need the 5,000 in the current search.

This probably is fits with the idea of hiring someone to update all the UI, but can you add section headings to match the sections in the "customize" screen? It's visually difficult to find the various categories and fields.

Little typo:

[dustymc]

5,000 i

I'll see what I can do, I don't think that'll be problematic (but there are various limitations).

section headings

Definitely needs a dedicated discussion. (And a discussion of those categories and what's in them is most welcome too, seems occasionally-simultaneously way too many and way not enough to me....) I can shuffle things around, but that results in everything all chopped up (and maybe empty 'sections') with certain settings. I'm up for whatever, but I suspect whatever I do is going to make things worse for someone.

typo

I still can't see it, elaborate please?

[campmlc]

I agree that this interface is much more visually difficult to navigate. The advantage of the current search page is that the large number of search terms - many more options than other databases offer - are divided into different tables. Having to choose off a full list with no categories is overwhelming. I like the idea of a customizable form, but visually and practically we need to make this easier for users to navigate, not more difficult. I can't imagine trying to demo this to new users. We at least need the option of continuing to allow the old form to be used while we develop this new one. For comparison - this is Harvard's page. Very simple, and clean. https://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/SpecimenSearch.cfm

[ebraker]

Agreed. This form is much less legible than the current version. I second @campmlc - we need to keep the current version available until we have a design that is simple and easy to navigate. I'm not sure why MCZbase has two versions of their search page, but here's both options for basic searches that seem like a good starting point (and have customizable options):

https://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/ and https://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/SpecimenSearch.cfm

[DerekSikes]

I third Emily & Mariel.

And how does one do a csv search on barcodes? I tried the any identifier field and that fails.

Also, these fields are slower searches. For example in the old search form I never use "Any taxon, ID, common name:" for a taxon search because 1) it is too slow & 2) it finds fuzzy matches. Instead I search on the identification field, which is faster. How do I do that? How do I limit the results to only records Identified by a certain agent in a certain date range? The sudden loss of how to access my data is freaking me out!

-Derek

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:28 AM Emily Braker @.***> wrote:

Agreed. This form is much less legible than the current version. I second @campmlc https://github.com/campmlc - we need to keep the current version available until we have a design that is simple and easy to navigate. I'm not sure why MCZbase has two versions of their search page, but here's both options for basic searches:

https://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/ and https://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/SpecimenSearch.cfm

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332428278, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFNUMY2K2BYFGBHDFNDUVLWK56BRANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects, Professor of Entomology University of Alaska Museum (UAM), University of Alaska Fairbanks 1962 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960 @.*** phone: 907-474-6278 he/him/his University of Alaska Museum https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/

• search 357,704 digitized arthropod records http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us

[campmlc]

As a start in categorizing the different fields, I suggest we keep the same organization as on the existing search page. So "part barcode" would be under the category "curatorial" as it is now - and the other fields would follow in the same order. It's going to be important for us to be able to customize things by category - so we don't have to hunt and peck through the full list. Is there a way we can use the existing search page but customize by choosing which fields to add/delete, rather than designing the entire visual page from scratch?

[dustymc]

we need to keep the current version available until

There's no hard timeline on this, but the old stuff will go away, one way or another, at some point. (Few months doesn't seem unreasonable, but it's old and could keel over at any time...)

And how does one do

The same way you always have; there's nothing new or missing (at least not intentionally, but I could have missed something) here.

visually difficult to navigate.

It is fully customizable. An individual user can set it to WHATEVER, or there's an offer to add "profiles."

simple and easy to navigate

I'm more of a fan of "whatever I want" but maybe that's just not viable.

I never use

Exactly! You (hopefully) have some idea of what you've asserted, you'll want different options than some naive user who can't know how you see the world (taxonomically, spatially, whatever) and just wants - at least initially - things that someone's called 'bees' (or maybe things that NCBI thinks are bees). I don't expect any two users want quite the same things, and that's what the form is built to accommodate.

Maybe that level of complexity really isn't tenable and the details are all wrong, but I think we have to at least acknowledge the diversity present in Arctos. It's not all PhD insect collection curators nor is it all 4th grade art project students. (And maybe we need to address that via technology - eg a default one-field Elasticsearch option probably comes closest to giving those extremes SOMETHING of interest. I'm completely open to radical ideas, but of course many of them need to be accompanied by resources.)

use the existing search page

No. This has to work with modern technology on various devices. There are a LOT of ways to accomplish that, but none of them involve much of the old code.

One option (which has been mentioned, but never acted upon, for decades) is to hire some sort of designer. The current page is dirt simple and should be completely accessible to anyone with basic HTML+CSS skills.

With or without that, I suggest we form a temporary task force and meet to address this.

(And SOMETHING is going to happen to GUID pages and headers/footers soon, that should probably be looped in to any design efforts.)

[campmlc]

Just a comment that in it's current iteration, none of these users could possibly figure this out: PhD insect collection curators or all 4th grade art project students. So we need a default public page similar to Harvard's.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 11:03 AM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

we need to keep the current version available until

There's no hard timeline on this, but the old stuff will go away, one way or another, at some point. (Few months doesn't seem unreasonable, but it's old and could keel over at any time...)

And how does one do

The same way you always have; there's nothing new or missing (at least not intentionally, but I could have missed something) here.

visually difficult to navigate.

It is fully customizable. An individual user can set it to WHATEVER, or there's an offer https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1322942094 to add "profiles."

simple and easy to navigate

I'm more of a fan of "whatever I want" but maybe that's just not viable.

I never use

Exactly! You (hopefully) have some idea of what you've asserted, you'll want different options than some naive user who can't know how you see the world (taxonomically, spatially, whatever) and just wants - at least initially - things that someone's called 'bees' (or maybe things that NCBI thinks are bees). I don't expect any two users want quite the same things, and that's what the form is built to accommodate.

Maybe that level of complexity really isn't tenable and the details are all wrong, but I think we have to at least acknowledge the diversity present in Arctos. It's not all PhD insect collection curators nor is it all 4th grade art project students. (And maybe we need to address that via technology - eg a default one-field Elasticsearch option probably comes closest to giving those extremes SOMETHING of interest. I'm completely open to radical ideas, but of course many of them need to be accompanied by resources.)

use the existing search page

No. This has to work with modern technology on various devices. There are a LOT of ways to accomplish that, but none of them involve much of the old code.

One option (which has been mentioned, but never acted upon, for decades) is to hire some sort of designer. The current page is dirt simple and should be completely accessible to anyone with basic HTML+CSS skills.

With or without that, I suggest we form a temporary task force and meet to address this.

(And SOMETHING is going to happen to GUID pages https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4337#issuecomment-1331437196 and headers/footers https://github.com/ArctosDB/internal/issues/211 soon, that should probably be looped in to any design efforts.)

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332543918, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGRZTDMCTM3ZRO3NBTWK6JGRANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dustymc]

none of these users could possibly figure this out:

Have you customized? IDK about the PhDs and don't have a 4th grader handy, but at least one 6th grader made it through this...

[sharpphyl]

It looks like you've put the most common fields at the very top rather than with the others in that section. Is that the core section? We're used to seeing signposts for each section and all the fields relating to that section all together.

Here's an example of what would help me that adds visual clarity as to what's in the section. They're the same headings in the current search screen but I added Core. Also, I would repeat the fields in Core in the sections where they normally belong such as "Any Taxon, ID, Common Name" and "Any Geographic Element."

These are the same categories (I think) as the categories in the Customize Search list, but they're alphabetical there.

It would be easier the list were sorted by the categories and in the same order as they appear on the search screen. It may be a good time to rethink the categories. For example, "Record" is currently "Catalog Record" but it's all about Parts, Attributes, Remarks. "Spatial" is a new one, etc.

The typo may be the way you want it. "recordlimit" is usually two words.

[campmlc]

Yes, this is my concern as well. We need to categorize the fields in the same way as they are available in the current form in tables. Perhaps some renaming/tweaking is necessary, but it should follow the same format. Most people use things such as the visual location of a data field on the current interface to know where to search. The proposed new view clutters this visual field instead of putting things in recognizable tables, and makes finding things very difficult. We need some form of table structure here.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Phyllis Sharp @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

It looks like you've put the most common fields at the very top rather than with the others in that section. Is that the core section? We're used to seeing signposts for each section and all the fields relating to that section all together.

Here's an example of what would help me that adds visual clarity as to what's in the section. They're the same headings in the current search screen but I added Core. Also, I would repeat the fields in Core in the sections where they normally belong such as "Any Taxon, ID, Common Name" and "Any Geographic Element."

[image: Screenshot 2022-11-30 at 4 34 51 PM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/15368365/204930836-09ff0193-fb40-404c-bd3a-c1b6cf03a2b3.png

These are the same categories (I think) as the categories in the Customize Search list, but they're alphabetical there.

[image: Screenshot 2022-11-30 at 4 23 19 PM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/15368365/204929452-f0d45616-a582-4860-aa27-8d9154539e2e.png

It would be easier the list were sorted by the categories and in the same order as they appear on the search screen. It may be a good time to rethink the categories. For example, "Record" is currently "Catalog Record" but it's all about Parts, Attributes, Remarks. "Spatial" is a new one, etc.

The typo may be the way you want it. "recordlimit" is usually two words. [image: Screenshot 2022-11-30 at 7 50 41 AM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/15368365/204932184-ff043739-f755-4014-a457-53d595d20c4a.png

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332904553, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBEZQ5SWKJIPM6QBRLDWK7RURANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dustymc]

adds visual clarity as to what's in the section

See https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332333428 - that would make things very choppy, and depending in what's turned on the nothing can end up taking more screen space than the something. Maybe that'll ultimately prove necessary, but it's not my preference, and would take away from the "customizability" - users would see a BLA section, like it or not (unless I can figure out some 'if any' magic, but I really don't think that's possible without jumping to a higher-level language which would introduce a whole new set of issues).

repeat the fields

That's not technically plausible.

good time to rethink the categories.

I'm up for absolutely anything there, whether we use them as some sort of section headers or not. Let me know if you want a CSV to modify!

(And FYI the "core" were formerly "required" - the name changed because there are essentially no requirements on this form - at least not yet....)

"recordlimit" is usually two words.

Aha! Not in my world, but I don't really care and it's easy to change.

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332543918, a task force still sounds like a good idea.

[campmlc]

I agree with a task force. What is the timeline on this, and urgency? It seems this came up rather suddenly.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:02 PM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

adds visual clarity as to what's in the section

See #2745 (comment) https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332333428

• that would make things very choppy, and depending in what's turned on the nothing can end up taking more screen space than the something. Maybe that'll ultimately prove necessary, but it's not my preference, and would take away from the "customizability" - users would see a BLA section, like it or not (unless I can figure out some 'if any' magic, but I really don't think that's possible without jumping to a higher-level language which would introduce a whole new set of issues).

repeat the fields

That's not technically plausible.

good time to rethink the categories.

I'm up for absolutely anything there, whether we use them as some sort of section headers or not. Let me know if you want a CSV to modify!

(And FYI the "core" were formerly "required" - the name changed because there are essentially no requirements on this form - at least not yet....)

"recordlimit" is usually two words.

Aha! Not in my world, but I don't really care and it's easy to change.

2745 (comment)

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332543918, a task force still sounds like a good idea.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332914019, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGDOTXZ2YUY63WEH5LWK7TKHANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dustymc]

came up rather suddenly

The old form not being default is fairly urgent for stability reasons. It can hang around 'internally' for a few months, probably. (But I'm not sure I'll get too excited about reviving it if something chokes either.) I don't have any hard timeline in mind, but this seems to be at least involved, if not necessarily causing, Arctos' toobs getting plugged with some regularity recently, so some urgency is merited.

Redoing the header and GUID pages is about equally urgent for precisely the same reasons, might be nice if that could be included in any considerations.

[campmlc]

Understood, although it is difficult to do this as well as loan forms, which also urgently need everyone's attention. I'm desperately trying to get the several days of concentrated attention to deal with loan templates, and haven't been succeeding.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 5:22 PM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

came up rather suddenly

[image: Screenshot 2022-11-30 at 4 10 45 PM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5720791/204934930-d5eefcff-d6ea-4800-babc-f625a1c0f09a.png

The old form not being default is fairly urgent for stability reasons. It can hang around 'internally' for a few months, probably. (But I'm not sure I'll get too excited about reviving it if something chokes either.) I don't have any hard timeline in mind, but this seems to be at least involved, if not necessarily causing, Arctos' toobs getting plugged with some regularity recently, so some urgency is merited.

Redoing the header and GUID pages is about equally urgent for precisely the same reasons, might be nice if that could be included in any considerations.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1332932575, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBABITXBSCN2Q6P4NY3WK7VVXANCNFSM4NTEJJQA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[sharpphyl]

Can we at least make the commands the same for the geography/places search and the catalog record search.

The catalog record search has these options at the very top and they are repeated at the bottom of the selected fields

The geography search has none of these options at the very top.

The commands come after the core fields and instead of submitting a query you find matches.

Can we make the options and the colors and the location of these commands the same.

[Jegelewicz]

One of the things we should be considering is what the default landing page should look like. IMO, nobody coming to Arctos from a Google search should see this.

We do need some public profile searches set up for people to use with an offer to customize if that's what they want to do.

Also WHY do locality/coordinates have be included in the default results? I don't think everyone thinks this is the most important bit of information associated with cataloged items.

[AJLinn]

Also WHY do locality/coordinates have be included in the default results? I don't think everyone thinks this is the most important bit of information associated with cataloged items.

Agreed. That was the first thing I got rid of when I customized my search. First thing added: media (which I immediately dragged next to my GUID column). Maybe have media default and remove the coordinates?

Specific locality is another essential piece of info.

[dustymc]

options and the colors

This form can be ~20 times as long as the geog form so I think dual controls are justified. Colors are https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/5316#issuecomment-1333963450 and I can change values/text as well.

after the core fields

Only if that's how you've customized.

default landing page

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XOUYr7dqKx_koobGg1tQu98hi_S_SHJMqJsjcuQf8YA/edit#gid=1478594408

Don't change OBJ_NAME without talking to me, 'core' is an expected value (initial search), probably everything else can be adjusted.

WHY

Because they are 'core.' Nothing is technically required (but guid is pretty important so I won't remove it...) and I intend to keep the form that way, otherwise please edit this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OgfoDESI63q7htC8SeONIMWbvF9cqrIc3sS-k804emE/edit#gid=603795984

OBJ_NAME and SQL_ELEMENT - don't change without talking to me

Nothing involving a function can be made 'core'. Making Media default would need a dedicated issue - we'd need to cache and adjust limits (because that can and will melt your browser, and the victims of that will blame Arctos).

Ask if you have any questions, let me know when that's ready to load back to the DB

everyone thinks

Absolutely nothing in common - of this much I'm sure...

public profile searches set

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1322942094

offer to customize

We can phrase or whatever, but I'm not very willing to consider customization without an account. (We actually need to discuss anonymous access as a matter of sustainability, but not here or now.)

I like SOMEHOW hinting at the idea that there's more but it needs an account, how that's done is very open for discussion.

EDIT - I have a request regarding categories. flatTableName.{taxonomic rank} columns (eg flatTableName.genus) are almost certainly more complex, and therefore less likely to be predictable, than any casual user (and maybe most operators) might be expected to understand. Can we move those into some sort of 'curatorial' slot?

[Jegelewicz]

Offer to customize

All I meant there was they can have the customize the search page option, but that definitely should not be the first thing public searchers see. And I would be totally OK with saying that one has to create an account in order to customize search.

[sharpphyl]

I can now see the first 5,000 results on one screen, but it doesn't seem to actually get the total results.

Can it return more than 5,000 results (on multiple pages) and show what the total number of results is?

Also, will my customization be saved like a profile from one session to another so I don't have to repeat the process?

[dustymc]

return more than 5,000 results

I'd need to see more to say anything very useful, but maybe https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/5080 - the new form limits results based on what you've got turned on. (And https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/5354 is a request to pay that cost up front for some stuff.)

will my customization be saved

Yup.

[sharpphyl]

I'd need to see more to say anything very useful,

I search for all records in a particular accession.

If I do this in today's search screen, I get 8,941 records.

I can adjust to the number shown to 5,000 so they appear on two pages.

But in the new version, I only get the first 5,000

I can't access the remaining records.

[dustymc]

Is this from your production login account, and if so is it set up (close to) the way you need?

[sharpphyl]

Not sure what account it's from. This is the link: https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/cat_records.cfm?guid_prefix=DMNS%3AInv&part_disposition=in%20collection

If it's just my login that's limiting the number of records in the results, then ignore the issue. If there's a search field I should check, let me know.

[dustymc]

See https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2745#issuecomment-1341900491

Number of rows is determined by costs. Factored in to that are operator status ("us" can deal with timeouts better than a naive user, I hope), the DB cost of compiling the results (cached things are cheap, things that have to run through functions and etc. aren't), and media (essentially no effect on Arctos itself, but it'll eat your browser and you'll blame Arctos).

I can't use test for tuning, so that's sorta 'guess and hope' until it gets to production, then there are very many possibilities and it's production so I have to be careful in approaching things. The more I know about what users are actually doing, the easier I'm going to get through that process.

One simplification might (I'd have to test) be to simply make expensive stuff unavailable to public users, but I think @ArctosDB/search-ui-task-group believes that everyone should have access to the same tools. (I agree, but reality and resources...)

just my login

Your login should enable you to do whatever you need, not the opposite.

search field I should check

Those aren't considered at this time, only results - which are visible via....

... then 'cost' column

Anyway - I raised the limits for "us" for next release, I'll try to get it out ASAP.

[Jegelewicz]

Something weird is going on here

[Jegelewicz]

and in parts too

[AJLinn]

Yeah, I've been noticing that too...

[dustymc]

Blargh.

The background is limited via media query, almost certainly at the request of @ebraker. It looked fine on my device, must have on hers, but I'm coming to the understanding that anything beyond the simplest CSS works as expected on a maximum of two devices, at least if it's written by me.....

I can simplify, remove the thing that's limiting the width of the stripey-bits.

I can try to do more, throw some other random numbers at it or something, but I'm not sure how productive that is. (We're almost there, or I can chase this forever?)

Or ya'll can find that designer we've been talking about forever, they should come equipped with the tools and the specialized knowledge to easily deal with these things that are at the fringes of my skillset. (They won't be able to do much with the antique header nor the legacy GUID page, so if we go this way it probably makes sense to get the functional parts of those out first.)