Creation of subgroups

[drozas]

Marco suggested the creation of subgroups of fields (using tabs) for those which are mandatory or not. The specific ones are gathered at UAB's document.

[drozas]

Looking at subfield.

[drozas]

TO-DO: Waiting for access to the UAB document for final implementation

[drozas]

A) To reduce the barriers to add new cases:

A1) To reduce the psychological burden: By default opening a window only with the compulsory fields; and putting at the end of the page in evidence the option "Add more information" that opens the other fields (that otherwise remain invisible).

A2) To simplify and reduce the time necessary: Reducing the compulsory fields. Actually the compulsory fields are: Name URL General description Legal entity Language(s) of the platform Type of activity The most important type of collaboration Type of common resource resulting User generated content license Software platform license

I suggest to eliminate as compulsory, leaving them as optional: Language(s) of the platform , The most important type of collaboration * and also (but I am less sure) Legal entity . I would instead just eliminate (see below why) User generated content license * and Software platform license *

In this case, the remaining compulsory fields would be only 5 (+1) and most very simple (the last two are with predefined options): Name URL General description Type of activity Type of common resource resulting * Plus eventually a sixth new field to be filled by text for describing the commons resource (see below).

B) To improve the quality or the type of information:

B1) In Type of activity * (that remains compulsory), at the option Others: when it is marked, it could be opened a space to specify (optionally) by text other possible areas of production not covered by our 28+1 categories.

B2) I would eliminate the last 4 fields: User generated content license Holder of the content license Software platform license Infrastructure provider

Because we have found these two categories (content and platform) in certain cases confusing and misleading. I would substitute them with a space to describe by text the kind of commons produced, beyond its generic character as captured by the categories of Type of common resource resulting * (Resource, Service, Design, Methodology, Internet protocol, Brand, Others). Similarly to what we have done in our web collection. We can make it compulsory or maybe better we can leave it as optional, but in any case I would open this field in the first page of the form to incentivize its filling (while the other optional information will not be visible without clicking on "Add more information"). I would also add a space – optional - to specify the license, using a window with the predefined options we used in the web collection. As not visible and optional I would also keep a space to precise the Owner of the license. And eventually a box where to precise by text whether there are other (complementary) commons or collaborative processes (as in the web collection form).

[drozas]

Done! Bug related to theming will be reported in a different issues. The creation/modification of fields is also part of a different ticket.

[drozas]

Done. Theming bug will be gathered in issue #61