interface depending on institution?

[mfrasca]

From @mfrasca on April 29, 2015 20:20

would it be difficult/possible to have the user specify which fields in the interface he does and which he does not want to see? during review of the program with Felipe, we came across several parts where he did understand the reason of some input fields, but he remarked that the Quito Botanical Garden does not particularly care about them. I'm afraid it would be difficult, though, as removing parts of the interface would upset the typesetting.

Copied from original issue: mfrasca/bauble.classic#75

[RoDuth]

Can we have Bauble.light? Or several options for interfaces. i.e. the needs of orchid collections is quite different to an arboretum or a collection of wild plants or a cultivar collection with a pure horticultural display focus.

In other words you maybe don't need to have every field adjustable so much as have options and you have to pick the most appropriate GUI to your needs.

I have had gardens with more simple needs tell me that Bauble is too complex for their them. Some gardens only need to know what plant is where, where did it come from (as in supplier) and when was it planted.

I would agree that this is something that needs to be addressed if you want to attract a more widespread uptake.

[mfrasca]

a configurable bauble.classic, with a kernel you could call bauble-light, this is what I think. to do this, to identify blocks that can be switched on or off, one would need talk with users, and users with different needs, and have enough time first to gather enough opinions, then to formalize them, then to identify in the software those parts which correspond to the different needs, and only at this point start modifying the code, and this should really happen in narrow contact with involved users.

[RoDuth]

@mfrasca I could see if there is interest within BGANZ/BRON to come up with a few examples to kick around?? No guarantees but there could be interest, I could ask the gardens that found it too complex and see if there are any similarities to there needs.

[mfrasca]

@RoDuth , let me know about your findings. I also think the interface should stay as simple as possible, and this conflicts with the need to expand the options offered by Bauble. "as simple as possible" could be interpreted differently by different institutions.

[RoDuth]

@tmyersdn What do you think Tom? Could we possible even extract some info from our survey results? Or ask around BGANZ in general? I actually think that between you and I we have a fair understanding of what people are looking for in a "simple" interface. @mfrasca I agree about keeping the interface simple but this should never be at the expense of increasing the abilities of Bauble. I can see Bauble becoming more and more "powerful" over the years, and hence more complex, and this is desirable. But, as you say, we definitely still need to service the needs of those that could be scared of by this. (I already know of gardens that haven't taken on Bauble because "it is to complex" but then I also know of gardens that wanted something more capable! so yes, institution dependant but I think this could be broken down to 2 or 3 variations)

On another tangent, I had another idea - can this be set at a user level? e.g. the system administrator has all the bells and whistles and can fill in extra details where needed but the general user has a limited interface ("what-where-when-where did it come from" sort of thing)? I would even like to see a system where any new records by general users are passed to the system administrator for approval before entering the records proper, so they can add extra details and make corrections if needed. Similar to what I have seen in other "more advanced" (and costly!) systems like BGBase etc.. In my opinion the search screen is just fine the way it is, it's only the species editor etc. that need consideration.

(Not being a programmer I don't really know how the GUI works. Is this what the "glade" files do? Act like a "plug-in to the database back-end" or is it that ingrained that it is a fairly severe re-write to change?)

[tmyersdn]

@RoDuth, my instinct is that Bauble is already a much better database than what many regional gardens are using. It falls over by being hard for non-techy people to start using, and for this reason I strongly support the idea of a facebook page or other social media such as twitter or instagram. Two levels of support are needed: for the IT technician and for garden staff, in most city gardens these roles are separate.

In terms of developing complexity in Bauble, I would say slow down and look at the end user. Their time is what is most important. The reason Bauble is a great database is that a regional garden with small number of staff and large ground area can do rapid data entry, flowing between entry screens in a way that is much more natural than with some larger databases. I am really pleased to hear of the work being done by @mfrasca to improve basic functions. I will post separately on the hybrid name questions.

@RoDuth, as an active end user, I am keen to mainly hear of issues that need improving for your current work, I'd say don't worry about pleasing all of BGANZ at this early stage.

[mfrasca]

This issue was moved to Ghini/ghini.desktop#119