Break up page 1

[tymees]

Page 1 of the form is... not great. I hate the UX, and that's actually going to be worse in the new design (as it takes up way more space). On the code side, I think it's the largest form we currently have, which brings a lot of complexity and general 'weirdness'. (Btw, I checked, that page does at least 20 calls to the backend due to js-check-storm).

So, I want to break up that entire form/pages into separate forms/pages. I think the most logical approach would be to, in general, follow the proc.reg. structure. (Steps 1 through 3).

Currently, the page is like so: (nested questions are depending on the one above)

• Institution (ICON etc)
• Relation (student/phd/etc)
  • Student programme
  • Student context
  • Student context details
  • Student justification (poor students, so many questions!)
  • Supervisor
  • other applicants?
  • applicants
  • other stakeholders (non-uu applicants, mostly)
  • stakeholders
  • date start
  • title
  • summary
  • pre_assesment_pdf (only for pre-assessment obv)
  • funding
  • details
  • funder name
  • pre-approved institute (who approved it?!?!) (only for pre-approved obv)
  • pre-approved PDF (only for pre-approved obv)
  • self-assesment

Following the procreg design, you'd arrive at the following distribution:

Preable:

• Questions in bold are not in procreg
• Intended page titles are added to the header; if the procreg has the same page, it's identical to the procreg title.
• Pages are top-level in the stepper. Sub-pages are below them, as sub-steps

Page 1: "De studie"

• title

Sub-page 1 (not-in-procreg) 'Relatie'

• institution
• relation
• The whole set of student questions.

Sub-page 2 "Mede onderzoekers"

• Supervisor (depending on sub-page 1)
• Applicants (removing the 'other_applicants' question, rephrasing it to 'who are your collaborators (include yourself pls)')
• Stakeholders (same thing, remove ther 'other_stakeholders', allowing it to be empty if there are none).

Note: I'm not entirely sure stakeholders isn't in procreg... It feels eerily similar to step 7 'ontvangers', but that's a lot more structured

Sub-page 3: "faculteit"

Empty, we only have humanities. This page could also house the 'institution' question? I'm mostly listing it because REBO has been grumbling about our ethics portal for some time, without any clear plan...

Page 2: "Studieperiode"

• Date start

Page 3: "Onderzoeksdoel"

• Summary
• self assesment
• pre-assesment

Page 4: not in procreg. 'Funding'

• all funding questions

This leaves the pre-approved questions dangling. They should probably be their own main page, inserted somewhere between the pages above (Page 5?)

[miggol]

I'm not so set on aligning the order of questions with procreg as an ideal. But it's as good as starting point as any.

My comments:

• Date start: could be on the very first page to make sure the "two weeks from today" warning is seen ASAP. Though that's not a very strong argument, hopefully users would fill in the totality of these sub pages pretty quickly.
• I don't feel a need for a faculty question or sub-page. The institution question already implies a faculty, should REBO ever join the club.
• I would rather see the Supervisor question on the relation page, because these pieces of information are so interdependent. It's nice that the supervisor question pops up immediately on the same page as the question that requires it.
• I think Funding can be on the mede-onderzoekers page. In the PDF, we would want this info to be close to the other stakeholders. Also users might fill in their funders in the "other stakeholders" field, not knowing that that specific question is still coming later.

[tymees]

About your first few points; I think they make sense, if you indeed want to drop the procreg-commonality. But I think that's a decision our secretary should say something about one way or the other.

But I do agree that placing funding near the stakeholders makes a ton of sense. My only worry would be the amount of questions on said page, but that's something we can just try out at first

[EdoStorm96]

I also mostly agree with the ideas outlined so far here. I guess funding getting moved to Subpage 2 "Mede-onderzoekers" is not so bad, if supervisor gets moved to Subpage 1 "Relatie". However, then subpage 1 gets kindoff big, especially for students. But maybe we can move institution up to Page 1 "De Studie"? This page would then include title, date start and institution, which imho kinda makes sense. I agree with pre-approved questions getting their own page, and having this as page 5 works for me.

So with these suggestions, it would look like this:

Page 1: "De studie"

• title
• date start
• institution

Sub-page 1 (not-in-procreg) 'Onderzoeker'

• relation
• The whole set of student questions.
• supervisor

Sub-page 2 "Mede onderzoekers"

• Applicants (removing the 'other_applicants' question, rephrasing it to 'who are your collaborators (include yourself pls)')
• Stakeholders (same thing, remove ther 'other_stakeholders', allowing it to be empty if there are none).

Sub-page 3 "Funding"

• funding

Page 2: "Onderzoeksdoel"

• Summary
• self assesment
• pre-assesment

Page 3: "Pre-approved questions" (optional)

• pre-approved institute (who approved it?!?!) (only for pre-approved obv)
• pre-approved PDF (only for pre-approved obv)

This still leaves certain subpages quite long ... But I do find it quite coherent like this.

[djhcapel]

This sounds like a logical solution, but I still have some remarks/questions:

• relation: does that refer to the question "In what capacity are you involved in this application?"

• Who are 'stakeholders'? Are these the people that are referred to in the question: "Are there any other researchers involved outside the above-mentioned institutes? :"? [I also find this confusing in proc.reg. (= 'ontvangers'? The co-researchers outside UU are not defined in the prototype, only "Onder ontvangers verstaan we: personen of instellingen buiten de Universiteit Utrecht met wie je de eerder opgegeven persoonsgegevens deelt. Denk aan andere universiteiten, aan opdrachtgevers, data scientists of andere externe instellingen.", whereas it is an important group of people.] For the 'other researchers' in the FETC-portal, it would be worthwhile knowing their affiliation, as in proc.reg., especially since for people outside of the EER who receive personal data, arrangements should either have been made or are to be discussed with the privacy officer.

• Funding: it would be helpful if this 'question' consisted of three fields, i.e.:

  1. name of funding party
  2. project title
  3. project number (if applicable) We now do not know the funding party, and often, applicants forget to add the project number, whereas I think it is important to include that information in the letter of approval.

[EdoStorm96]

So I've discussed this with the secretary, and I've incorporated her ideas into the order I have outlined above. So I will start implementing this.