Closed gissoo closed 2 years ago
@mrustow @richmanrachel Ben has made some great progress on implementing the scholarship records page and revising the citation output format to standardize and use CMS, but his work raised some questions that we need your input on.
I think there's some tension between the desire to use CMS and our previous decisions to keep these source notes a bit simpler than full-blown citations
Source
record for place of publication and publisher. Do you want them? Or not want them?Hi @mrustow @richmanrachel, I also wanted to pass along this list of data entered into the "Other Info" field of some Sources. I think these basically fall into three categories: page ranges (which we already have a field for), publication place/publisher info (which we've proposed adding fields for), and notes that should perhaps not be part of the citation. Note that in the cases where they contain years, those years have already been entered into the appropriate field. In cases where they contain page ranges, they should probably be entered with a consistent format into the Page Range field, and I'd recommend omitting the "pp." in those cases.
@rlskoeser - I'll do my best answering your questions, but I'll add this to tomorrow's agenda so we can get MR's opinions.
Ben added new fields to Source record for place of publication and publisher. Do you want them? Or not want them?
- I don't feel strongly either way.
Formatted citations per CMS would include (n.p., n.d.) when publication information and publisher is not present. Ben is currently excluding it for unpublished sources, but this is a bit at odds with the brief citations you had before, and may impact a number of sources until you populate the publication information. Should we diverge from CMS and omit when publication information and date are not set?
- Could we perhaps differentiate between a brief citation on the Document Details page versus a proper CMS citation on the Scholarship Record page? If it's not too much extra logic to create, I think it would be an intuitive differentiation between the repetition of information across those two pages.
@blms - I agree with you that we should just do some data work to get rid of the information that doesn't belong/put it into its correct place. How quickly do we need this done? I'm worried our RAs are short on time at this point in the semester, but I could try to do it quickly myself if needed.
- Could we perhaps differentiate between a brief citation on the Document Details page versus a proper CMS citation on the Scholarship Record page?
I like this idea a lot! I'm not sure how much extra work, might depend on how "simple" the brief citation is (or how different from the proper citation).
How quickly do we need this done? I'm worried our RAs are short on time at this point in the semester, but I could try to do it quickly myself if needed.
@richmanrachel no rush! It only needs to be done as quickly as you want the citations to reflect all the existing data. Until then, page numbers stored in the wrong place will just be omitted from the citations, and publisher info will get the "n.p." abbreviations.
@blms - great! I'll add this list as an Asana task while I'm thinking about it...
@rlskoeser - I guess the simpler one could drop the place of publication and publisher, and maybe even page numbers or year? If we drop whole fields, I assume it's easier to write consistent logic?
Yes, dropping whole fields and keeping things consistent across types (as we can) would probably help.
@blms any opinions on the approach to the simpler citation? Could it make sense to add a flag to the formatted display method that would omit some fields, so the logic is shared where appropriate?
@richmanrachel @rlskoeser Yes, that makes sense to me. That way we can also adjust on the fly if we decide to change which fields should be included.
That also brings up the question we were discussing in #313 about footnote page numbers (Footnote - Location field) vs source page numbers (Source - Page Range/Other Info fields). I wonder if the display of these should differ between detail and scholarship records pages?
I'll paste here the list of footnotes that have both:
@blms and @rlskoeser
That also brings up the question we were discussing in #313 about footnote page numbers (Footnote - Location field) vs source page numbers (Source - Page Range/Other Info fields). I wonder if the display of these should differ between detail and scholarship records pages?
- Yes, this actually would make sense! We should cite the page number for the Footnote on the Document Detail view, because that's showing what page the actual transcription is from. The page range for the article can be kept in the Scholarship Records field.
Keeping this logic of Document Detail = directly related to what you see in the document vs. Scholarship Record = where to look for more info could be a good guiding principle.
Thanks much @richmanrachel, this was super helpful.
A couple of other questions that have come up while working on this:
@blms this might be a pretty picky thing, and isn't necessarily specific to this issue, but I've noticed that when you're switching between document tabs (doc details, scholarship records) you have to click on the words — but the design makes me think I should be able to click anywhere on that "block" (roughly); right now it's possible to get a point between the two lines that is not clickable. Could you make the a
tags blocks so the whole thing is clickable?
@rlskoeser Done in #388, should be available next deploy to QA!
@rlskoeser Added some testing notes here.
Some of my initial concerns were about formatting, but when I changed the window size to be smaller they went away. See for example how the tags show up on the larger window: Vs. slightly smaller window:
The smaller window version is much clearer for me (having the tags separated and the editor information more neatly stacked). I do wonder if we want some kind of unpublished marker next to Craig Perry's name here because it's a little confusing to see it hanging there.
Should we also change "Editor" to "Editors" when there is more than one?
@blms - I like the way the Scholarship Records page works! The fields seem to be correct on both pages, except perhaps the lack of unpublished marker on Document Details (which I know is the opposite of what I said the other day... sorry!).
@rlskoeser, my biggest meta question is how do we know which of the editors listed made the transcription that will appear on the page? Is that information going to be included closer to the transcription itself?
My fake publishing location was an instant success:
Just going to set this to Tested: Needs Attention to make sure we address the Unpublished question.
@rlskoeser, my biggest meta question is how do we know which of the editors listed made the transcription that will appear on the page? Is that information going to be included closer to the transcription itself?
I had some questions about that too — on the document details page should we only show the editor for the edition that is available digitally? Or all known editions? (I don't actually remember what the current logic is, but your screenshot made me think we're displaying all editions.)
We'll probably need to display the editor/source with the transcription text as well, since we know we have at least some cases where there are multiple transcriptions for the same document.
@rlskoeser - Perhaps we should show this brief citation directly with the matching transcription text, and not have it at the top of the page? I think this would make sense intuitively, to understand that the transcription has been touched/edited by x person/s, but go to the Scholarship Records for other types of information.
@rlskoeser @richmanrachel Indeed, the current logic is to show "All footnotes for this document where the document relation includes edition; footnotes with content will be sorted first."
Perhaps we should show this brief citation directly with the matching transcription text, and not have it at the top of the page?
In that case, when a transcription isn't available online, should there be no "Editor" section on the document detail view? That makes sense to me, but just wanted to confirm.
(On that note, is the transcription currently possible to view? I see the excerpts in search results but not sure where they appear on the document detail view.)
The smaller window version is much clearer for me (having the tags separated and the editor information more neatly stacked).
The tags appear in the right column, rather than vertically below the rest of the metadata, as a result of adapting the designs for only the MVP features. See screenshot of design below—without the cluster and fragment info, the right column is just left with the tags. I'm happy to make the change, since I think it makes sense to wait for the columns until we have those other features, but want to get @gissoo's approval before doing so.
In that case, when a transcription isn't available online, should there be no "Editor" section on the document detail view? That makes sense to me, but just wanted to confirm.
- @blms - Yes, I don't think an editor should appear on the document detail page if we're not displaying what they've edited. @mrustow may disagree with me, though.
(On that note, is the transcription currently possible to view? I see the excerpts in search results but not sure where they appear on the document detail view.)
- I noticed this too... I assumed it was just out of scope for this issue or temporarily dropped while you were building something? But @rlskoeser - are transcriptions supposed to be showing at the moment?
I agree, we should only display editor of digital edition on the main document page. @blms do we have an issue yet for the simple citation on document detail page? Can we fold this in to that? I don't want to make this issue any bigger!
We haven't implemented images & transcription on document detail page yet. Hopefully coming soon! #322
@blms are you clear on what is needed to revise this issue and pass acceptance testing? I wasn't clear on what was needed with unpublished items, but perhaps you and Rachel have already discussed. (Or it is part of a separate issue?)
@rlskoeser - I think whether we add "unpublished" after an editors name might functionally be a design issue. I was worried that Craig Perry's name above looked bare without additional information next to book titles, but it won't look weird if it's clearly part of the transcription information. Perhaps we do want to keep "unpublished" as part of the simple citation regardless, but we can probably close this issue? @blms - what do you think?
@richmanrachel That makes sense to me—I'll add that "unpublished" bit to #390 and we can close this one.
@blms - great, thank you!
testing notes
Note that #389 was moved into a separate issue, so footnote locations within a source still only display on the Document Detail view for the time being.
dev notes
geniza.footnotes.Source
string method to generate citations that are better formatted based on the type of courseformattted_display
that takes all the functionality we have now in thestr
method, and addsem
tags and whatever other formatting is needed, and then thestr
method basically calls that and runsstriptags
draft format we're targeting:
Needs to handle optional fields gracefully.
We want to use CMS to the degree possible, and make things consistent.
All non-English languages should be specified as (in Hebrew) for all types per CMS, so: Author, Title of Book (in foreign language) (City: Publisher, year). Author, "Title of Article" (in foreign language) # (year): #–#.