Managing entity linkages - Campaign Page

[tania-pires]

Information to Add

• [x] notes_public
• [x] significant_events
• [x] nasa_missions
• [x] repositories
• [x] other_resources

Details

Notes for each of the new pieces of information.

notes_public

• Description: notes that are not a campaign description but still are important for people to know
• Placement: underneath Overview section as "Additional Notes"

Examples:

• Details are extensively available for 2017 only. That's why metadata input are for 2017 year only.\nDeployment count is 2 because there is a deployment currently happening. As a result, inventory data mostly reflects 2017.
• ACE mission: Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystems Mission, which looks like evolved into PACE (Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean and Ecosystem) Mission; overview publication is currently in \"discussion\"/public review phase at ESSD journal (https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-3405)

significant_events

• Description: A significant event is an event of scientific interest, such as a fire or a hurricane, that occurred while the campaign was taking place
• Placement: I think significant events could go well in the timeline along with deployments. They should be distinguished in some way from deployments, however.

We don't necessarily have to include all the information about the significant event in the timeline card right now. reference_file and published_list I already excluded because they either don't make sense or return null.

Examples:

      "region_description": "Atlantic",
      "reports": "Flight Reports: http://dx.doi.org/10.5067/HS3/REPORTS/DATA101",
      "description": "Hurricane Nadine - SAL interaction",
      "end_date": "2012-09-15",
      "short_name": "hs3_se_1",
      "start_date": "2012-09-11"

      "end_date": "2015-12-18",
      "region_description": "Olympic Peninsula",
      "reports": "Science Summary: https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/fieldCampaigns/gpmValidation/olympex/reports/data/mission_scientist/olympex_20151212Science_summary.pdf",
      "description": "Anomalous trough conditions",
      "short_name": "olympex_se_4",
      "start_date": "2015-12-11"

nasa_missions

• Description: A satellite mission that the airborne mission supports. This isn't super common.
• Placement: Perhaps at the bottom of overview? Or maybe below Platforms & Instruments?

Examples:

• MODIS
• PACE

repositories

• Description: The link to and name of the DAAC where the data is stored
• Placement: Currently on the right side bar. We would like to change it so that "Repository Website" is a header and the link is named by the long name of the DAAC

Examples of long names (each one also has a link):

• Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC)
• Land Processes DAAC (LP DAAC)

other_resources

• Description: a list of links to additional information for that campaign
• Placement: bottom of the page

Example (each campaign seems to have 2-6 links): https://lvis.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data/Maps/Gabon2016Map.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/multimedia/imagegallery/C-20A/AFRC2016-0054-539.html https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/xpress_afrisar.pdf https://earth.esa.int/documents/10174/134665/AfriSAR-Final-Report https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ASP_Spring2016_nsltr_rev.pdf

This issue is related to #146

[tania-pires]

inVision link

[rwegener2]

This looks great to me @tania-pires ! 🎉

Breaking this into frontend tasks I see:

Additional Notes

set for implementation (wireframes show implementation)

• uses the notes_public endpoint

Repository Website

set for implementation (see description in original post for implementation)

• uses the repository endpoint

I don't think this one was designed into the wireframes but that's alright (I imagine that is partially because those links on the right side haven't been updated since previous work to reflect the current state of the website). The description in the original comment I think is descriptive enough for implementation so we can move forward with this one.

Other Resources

set for implementation (minor change from wireframes)

• uses the other_resources endpoint

I don't think we are given nice name labels like are in the wireframes but if we place the links there for now we can bring this up with ADMG.

NASA Missions

modified implementation

• uses nasa_missions endpoint
• only a few campaigns will have these. This section should disappear for other campaigns.

I really like what the design has here. It is very visually appealing. Unfortunately at this point I think all we get returned from the API is the name of the mission, not an image, description, or link to the home website. I think ADMG will like this idea but we will have to wait for them to provide content if we are going to move forward with this design. For now perhaps we can keep the section header the same and then maybe add the mission names as cards like the Focus Areas in this design are listed? ~If we have a generic satellite icon that has already been designed maybe that could go in place of the Focus Area logo. @tania-pires what do you think about this?~ Sounds like 98% of the NASA Missions are satellites but one (Radex supporting the Olympex campaign) was another campaign. We could still use logos but it is less appealing now that there would be some hard coding for now.

Timeline (adding significant events)

set for implementation

• uses significant_events endpoint

I think this one is ready to move forward. I have some broader thoughts about addressing the non-human readable names, distinguishing between deployments and campaigns, and modifying how we should the length of events on the timeline, but I think that those should be saved and we will open another ticket in the future to revisit more generally improvements to the timeline.

Don't work on

The final note I'll make is that this wireframe has the Work In Progress version of the science keywords. For the upcoming sprint we are not making those changes since 1) they are not the priority and 2) they are not fully designed, so don't worry about those changes. The changes to the Platforms & Instruments section are also a part of a separate ticket.

[rwegener2]

ADMG Feedback 11/20

General Changes

• change header "NASA Missions" -> "Supported NASA Missions"
• confirmation that the "Supported NASA Missions" section will disappear if there are none for a particular campaign
• could we distinguish a bit more between significant events and deployments in the timeline? We can make larger changes as a part of a different ticket something small, like a change in shape or color could suffice for now.

Notes on things that would require extra content

NASA Missions

• They like the Mission url and info but that isn't their top priority right now.

Design implication: @tania-pires Can we do some kind of small card or something instead of the text and image you have right now?

Other Resources

• They do want resource titles for Other Resources. This is important enough that they will be asking Carson about it and perhaps even have it ready for us to implement in January.

For now we can move forward with just raw URLs in the links.

[tania-pires]

Design Changes

• [x] Change header "NASA Missions" -> "Supported NASA Missions"

• [x] Change Platforms and instruments color background to bluish

• [x] Add deployment dates hover on the header

• [x] Change text hierarchy on Platforms and Instruments dropdowns content

• [x] More distinction between significant events and deployments in the timeline

• [x] "Supported NASA Missions" - small card

[rwegener2]

In response to a question from @AliceR: @tania-pires suggests that "Other Resources" go below the "Program Info" section

[rwegener2]

@AliceR pointed out some redundancies in the information in the "Overview" section at the top and the "Program Info" section at the bottom. I started documenting these redundancies here.

In the end there is a redundancy of two links, which I don't think is bad I think we should just ask ADMG for a more consistent name for each. We may also at some point want to clarify what each of the top links refers to, but I will call that out of scope for that ticket. The repositories endpoint is the only endpoint getting added in this ticket that overlaps with the others. The way that is described in the original post to integrate this endpoint I think will actually make it clearer what "Repositories" means and help with clarity.

[AliceR]

I want to avoid blowing up the PR #200 even more. What is missing to close this issue is:

• [x] clean up how links are displayed (updated design decision pending)
• [x] add section with links from other_resources

Observation to raise about NASA missions: currently, it is really only a comma separated string that the backend provides. Should we ask to add more mission data like logo, url, ...?

[rwegener2]

@AliceR To your comment about the NASA missions the question was raised and ADMG liked it. Gathering satellite links and images is just not at the top of their priority list so we should move forward for the medium-term future without them.