Plan creation wizard rework

[sjDCC]

Several users / unis have reported confusion over the plan creation wizard. It's not always intuitive to know how to get institutional templates. Perhaps we need to adjust the layout of this wizard so institutional templates are immediately visible beneath the org box (once selected) and it shows as an either/or to select a uni template or a funder one?

Dutch users have asked to discuss this at the next user group as they have a slightly different position emerging. ZonMw and NWO are allowing researchers to use uni templates when they are approved. This means DMPonline will need to change the logic for this use case to present relevant options. We can configure it as an option that's switched off for others.

Thoughts from US examples welcome @mariapraetzellis

[briri]

We've also had requests to allow a one-click plan creation type feature for organizational templates.

[sjDCC]

The main preference to come out of the user group was having basic filters for orgs and funders which then bring up a dropdown list of all possible options. Admin users would like to configure the names and order of that list to align with local policy e.g. use the TU Delft template

[magdalenadrafiova]

relates to: https://github.com/DMPRoadmap/roadmap/issues/2835

[mariapraetzellis]

Adding a recent comment from a user:

When creating a DMP, selecting a template is gated by the primary funding organization. It might be nice to have an option to use an alternative organization's template (e.g., the DOT template is not accessible if I list FAA as my primary research organization).

[magdalenadrafiova]

Not sure whether we discuss the same here @mariapraetzellis (might be) but we got suggestion that when a plan is created and the funder is selected the funder template will appear in the list of templates the researcher can choose. rather than automatically be presented with the funder template. In Netherlands the funders often approve institutional templates, and this is quite clear from their naming conventions but the institutional template would not appear the second funder template is selected/ Therefore having a list of templates where researchers could select one would be better way to go forward

[pherterich]

Linking another set of issues that should be considered as part of this work: #3088 #2886 #2218 #2925

[johnpinto1]

I have started on this. I see it is quite complex, so may take some time to understand functionality and then change it. As I need to understand current functionality to understand what may be feasible.

[johnpinto1]

Adding a recent comment from a user:

When creating a DMP, selecting a template is gated by the primary funding organization. It might be nice to have an option to use an alternative organization's template (e.g., the DOT template is not accessible if I list FAA as my primary research organization).

@mariapraetzellis a question regarding the user's suggestion. So in the quote cited is the user wanting to see all publicly available templates from other orgs too?

[pherterich]

@mariapraetzellis a question regarding the user's suggestion. So in the quote cited is the user wanting to see all publicly available templates from other orgs too?

Yes, this is one of the issues we will need to address, some funders allow institutional templates to be used, so while the current approach is helpful to narrow it down to the right template, it can be too restrictive in cases. The initial mock-up suggests something like a few recommended templates but also the option to use "other" and search for more. We probably need to narrow things down to exactly what we want where, but this is the general challenge.

[johnpinto1]

@pherterich All such input is helpful as I study and play around with the code.

[briri]

It may be worth having @benjaminfaure show us their plan creation workflow in more detail. They have a custom approach that I believe is more flexible than the baseline Roadmap approach

[johnpinto1]

@briri can you arrange it?

[mariapraetzellis]

@johnpinto1 and @pherterich, I'm excited to start working on this feature. A larger Roadmap team meeting to discuss approaches to implementing this would be helpful. I will propose some times via Slack.

[mariapraetzellis]

Just a note that we should be sure to make it easy for a user to generate a plan based on the generic/default template.

[mariapraetzellis]

Started a google document to record our ideas

[johnpinto1]

@briri @gjacob24 Please look at code in commit, especially, the new_plans_controllerhttps://github.com/DMPRoadmap/roadmap/commit/786d87f3b0448430312c450c3260862a8e74d7c2 and provide feedback. I followed your suggestions at the last chat we had.

I have added a button to Create Plans page named Try New Plan Creation Wizard to link to new functionality

The new page has only one check box now, namely, the one for mock plans. Org and funder no longer required only title and template are required fields and the first template pre-selected is the default template.

[briri]

The changes look good @johnpinto1 overall. I added some comments for a few minor changes. The primary change is to the Funder and Org lists you are loading. Don't restrict the funder list to only include funders with templates and don't restrict the research orgs based on their org_type. We want to know who the true values for these.

[johnpinto1]

@briri I think I have done the changes you suggested. Please double check https://github.com/DMPRoadmap/roadmap/commit/c645381aa213621640e07c9cdcd33dd2b23e8fd0. Creating Test and other plans seem to work.

[johnpinto1]

@briri I have updated the code https://github.com/DMPRoadmap/roadmap/commit/fc5ac7e6f85db40f2d19e7b373365f39099fff4e . So the required asterisk appears beside template selection with associated tooltip and screen reader read only text.

[nicolasfranck]

Shouldn't there be a place for administrative data? I mean: "primary research organisation" and "funder" look in the wizard like fields that do not have anything to do the selection of a template. A different layout would make that more clear:

Choose your template:

by primary research organisation

by funder

Some of our users are confused that about these fields..

[nicolasfranck]

Or:

Choose your template

--Select your primary research organisation-- --Select your funder-- --Select your template--

All of them would have to be select boxes, and each of them is changed based on the value of the select box above.

Every select box should have an empty value (with instructions), so one must select a value, even if it is just one. This way one knows what template was selected

e.g. if neither primary research organisation nor funder is chosen, then the dcc template is added to the list of templates.

[johnpinto1]

@nicolasfranck Thanks will incorporate one of the suggestions when I revisit code next week.

[laurastandaert]

We have run into problems with users not selecting an appropriate template because they were trying to be as administratively correct as possible in the 'create plan' page, while they should actually be selecting the most appropriate template. This is a serious risk because this also means that they do not fill out the privacy list of questions (which is an institutional customisation to the template) we want them to answer.

We could think of 3 distinct functionalities where organisations and funders can be selected/entered in the DMP application

• Purpose 1: org to which the DMP belongs in db: important for visibility, org admins etc. This should not be modifiable
• Purpose 2: select a suitable template with tailored guidance
  • This is what you do in 'create plan' page and you want to make it as fool-proof as possible that users select the correct template with the instructions you want them to have. And you also want to make sure there is no confusion: this merely serves to select a template and guidance, not to have the most complete administrative information (see purpose 3)
• Purpose 3: administrative details about your project regarding organisation and funder
  • This is not limited to available templates and guidances, there can be many more affiliations or funding sources. Just as is now the case for the funder information on the 'project details': this does not influence the funder template as entered in 'create plan', nor the available customisations eg question specific guidance.
  • A field similar to Funder could be added to Project Details to indicate the Research Organisation (or even call this 'affiliation' to not use the same terminology as 'organisation' in the application).
  • In an ideal world, this information is standardized by selecting from RoR supplemented by an 'Other' field in which free text can be entered

[johnpinto1]

Shouldn't there be a place for administrative data? I mean: "primary research organisation" and "funder" look in the wizard like fields that do not have anything to do the selection of a template. A different layout would make that more clear:

Choose your template:

by primary research organisation

by funder

Some of our users are confused that about these fields..

@nicolasfranck I looked at your suggestion and realised that: this is not what the DCC & UC3 asked for. They want to the user to choose any template, with a default template being initially selected.

[johnpinto1]

We have run into problems with users not selecting an appropriate template because they were trying to be as administratively correct as possible in the 'create plan' page, while they should actually be selecting the most appropriate template. This is a serious risk because this also means that they do not fill out the privacy list of questions (which is an institutional customisation to the template) we want them to answer.

We could think of 3 distinct functionalities where organisations and funders can be selected/entered in the DMP application

* **Purpose 1**: org to which the DMP belongs in db: important for visibility, org admins etc. This should not be modifiable

* **Purpose 2**: select a suitable template with tailored guidance

  * This is what you do in 'create plan' page and you want to make it as fool-proof as possible that users select the correct template with the instructions you want them to have. And you also want to make sure there is no confusion: this merely serves to select a template and guidance, not to have the most complete administrative information (see purpose 3)

* **Purpose 3**: administrative details about your project regarding organisation and funder

  * This is not limited to available templates and guidances, there can be many more affiliations or funding sources. Just as is now the case for the funder information on the 'project details': this does not influence the funder template as entered in 'create plan', nor the available customisations eg question specific guidance.
  * A field similar to Funder could be added to Project Details to indicate the Research Organisation (or even call this 'affiliation' to not use the same terminology as 'organisation' in the application).
  * In an ideal world, this information is standardized by selecting from RoR supplemented by an 'Other' field in which free text can be entered

@laurastandaert as I pointed out to @nicolasfranck it looks like the requirements suggested by DCC & UC3 are different from your suggestions. I think we need @mariapraetzellis , @dsisu and @briri to come up with something that reconciles their requirement with your suggestions. I know of one of them being currently on holiday.

[johnpinto1]

@briri @dsisu @gjacob24 @laurastandaert @mariapraetzellis @martaribeiro @nicolasfranck

We have deployed code for the first iteration of the New Plan Creation wizard to https://dmponline-dev.dcc.ac.uk/ (Please note because of expired certificate on site you will get warnings which you should ignore to create account and login.) Then go to "Create Plan" page (this is the current page). On the page there is a button "Try New Plan Creation Wizard" which will take you to the new functionality for you to critique for forthcoming meeting.

Warning to ignore:

Current "Create Plan" page with button button "Try New Plan Creation Wizard" to link to new functionality

New Plan Creation page

[briri]

@pengyin-shan @benjaminfaure see John's note above about the new create plan page.

[pengyin-shan]

@pengyin-shan @benjaminfaure see John's note above about the new create plan page.

Great! unfortunately I cannot log in because I don't know the name and password...but the flow looks good to me. Just FYI that DMP Assistant does not use Funder in workflow, so we always commented out the part that shows 'Select the primary funding organization'. We allow users to input anything in the 'funder' field when creating a new plan. This field will be a 'unmanaged' organization that saved to database without any other information

[mariapraetzellis]

@johnpinto1 I'm wondering if we need to add a typeahead in the Template field. DMPTool has many (+40) templates shared between all organizations, and some orgs have numerous institutional templates on top of this. So, a user will be presented with a long list of templates to scroll through. Adding a filter or typeahead could be a way to find the template they want quickly.

[johnpinto1]

@pengyin-shan You just create a new email account on server to login. Choose any Org - it is just for access. Good luck!

[johnpinto1]

@mariapraetzellis Will try to sort the issue next

@johnpinto1 I'm wondering if we need to add a typeahead in the Template field. DMPTool has many (+40) templates shared between all organizations, and some orgs have numerous institutional templates on top of this. So, a user will be presented with a long list of templates to scroll through. Adding a filter or typeahead could be a way to find the template they want quickly.

[martaribeiro]

@johnpinto1 Do you think it would be possible to organise the dropdown content? I was thinking in something like:

Which DMP template would you like to use?

---

Templates from Primary Research Organisation Template 1 Template 2 etc

---

Templates from Funders Template 1 Template 2 etc

---

All other templates Template 1 Template 2 etc

[johnpinto1]

Will seek to incorporate both suggestions by @martaribeiro & @mariapraetzellis

[johnpinto1]

@briri I have made the changes @mariapraetzellis requested using your suggestion of HTML5 datalist in commit https://github.com/DMPRoadmap/roadmap/commit/adce18a61178c79f5e96b95c79b2d1dbf9a394b3

@martaribeiro has deployed the changes.

Styling of the Template dropdown requires styling. I found I will need to use a gem datalist-css as otherwise datalist style depends on browser.

@mariapraetzellis I hope this is what you requested

[johnpinto1]

@briri @dsisu @gjacob24 @laurastandaert @mariapraetzellis @martaribeiro @nicolasfranck @pengyin-shan

I have updated the code which is deployed on the Dev server https://dmponline-dev.dcc.ac.uk/

Changes:

• Templates now can be searched in dropdown with typeahead.
• Templates in dropdown have been split into three categories:

  Templates from Primary Research Organisations Templates from Funders Other Templates

Note I am using an HTML5 datalist for the Template dropdown. It cannot be easily styled and is browser dependent. I will talk to @briri about alternatives when he is back from his holidays.

[johnpinto1]

@laurastandaert found a bug in the New Plan Creation. You will get the following error if try to click on New Plan Creation button if you are a new user or you are not an Org Admin. Let me know if you get error and I will temporarily make you Org Admin until I fix issue.

[johnpinto1]

I have a fix for bug above. So new users won't need to be made Org admins by me. It will be deployed this afternoon. So bear with us if you get error above.

[johnpinto1]

Fix now deployed. So all users should be able to create plans using New Plan page.

[gjacob24]

The plan creation branch will be temporarily unavailable until next week, as we need to do some testing on the roadmap one. We will let you know as soon as it is up again.

[mariapraetzellis]

Adding a link to the ideas document shared by @nicolasfranck and Laura Standaert at UGent.

[johnpinto1]

A Swedish user has come up with some further suggestions:

As for the plan creation wizard, there are some suggestions that might be worthwhile to consider.

Why not change the current text on the front page of the plan creation wizard and replace “No research organisation associated with this plan or my research organisation is not listed” with a sentence like “I would like to add a research organisation that is not listed here”? In a similar way, one could replace “No funder associated with this plan or my funder is not listed” with a sentence like “I would like to add a funder that is not listed here”. That would probably sound a bit more welcoming and would likely be no big deal to change.

As for research funders in Sweden, there is a long list of different funders that not only includes the Swedish Research Council and FORMAS but also many large and small private foundations. It is probably difficult to include them all, but it would not be difficult to invite a person who would like to write a data management in DMPonline to add their own funder and research organisation.

That applies also to the page about “Project details”. There is no need to show researchers a red flag when they enter a research funder that is not on the default list of DMPonline. Instead a of a red message “The name you entered was not one of the listed suggestions!” it might perhaps be possible to write something like “You entered a funder that currently is not on the default list, which may be perfectly fine.”

People in the UK are known for being very polite and why should DMPonline not speak the same kind of language? To add one more point about the page for “Project details”, it would likely be greatly appreciated, if there was a field that would allow people to add the research organisation that is responsible for the research project because this a very important information about a research project.

To add two more points that would make life a bit easier for people who use DMPonline, it would be very helpful, if the section about contributors would appear in the printed version of a data management plan because it would save us the effort to include this part as an own section into our template. In addition, we believe that it would make life easier for everybody, if the option “project detail cover sheet” would be preselected in the section “Download settings”. Not everybody looks at this point and as a result it can happen that people send in data management plans with no administrative information about their project. At least the second suggestion is likely a minor point that could be easily changed.

[johnpinto1]

@briri @benjaminfaure @dsisu@gjacob24 @laurastandaert @mariapraetzellis @martaribeiro @nicolasfranck @pengyin-shan

A reworking of the Plan creation wizard based on a spec suggested by the folk at Ghent @laurastandaert and @nicolasfranck. With coding help from @nicolasfranck to get me started as I was lost trying to implement the spec. I hope I have done it justice. All omissions are solely my responsibility. It is a start and a work in progress. The deployed code is at a new URL https://dmponline-test.dcc.ac.uk/ . Note you might need to register again or for first time. There is a certificate issue on server so ignore warnings to proceed.

Note Plan creation wizard no longer on separate page (it just replaces current one):

[nicolasfranck]

Seems very good to me, but I'm just a programmer ;-)

Anyone else?

[johnpinto1]

@nicolasfranck Thanks. It appears our users have contradictory requirements so we still have to sell this or change it to suit one group or the other.

[nicolasfranck]

@johnpinto1 sorry for taking so long, I was waiting for the end users to answer (to no avail). Do you have a list of the contradicting requirements/expectations of the end users?

[johnpinto1]

@nicolasfranck We have not created a list. But at an User meeting we had in November some folk liked the change, others said giving users a choice of templates will confuse some researchers.

[nicolasfranck]

An argument for always showing the template list, is the fact that it shows the purpose of the wizard, which is choosing a template. If you don't, and only list the funder and research organisation, it looks like you're doing something entirely different (which explains the focus of some users on the administrative correctness of the funder for example).

Besides, even if there is just one template, it can always be different, depending on your choice. So making your choice explicit, removes confusion afterwards (something like "huh, why do I get these questions???").

[johnpinto1]

@nicolasfranck Thanks for this feedback, I will bring to attention of folk at Roadmap meeting: @briri,@mariapraetzellis, @dsisu. @martaribeiro, @gjacob24, @pengyin-shan

[dsisu]

Also see issue #2835