Closed gissoo closed 3 years ago
@rlskoeser @thatbudakguy this issue is ready for review.
other notes...
in general the design makes sense to me. A few things:
I would like to see some examples of documents without images. It's not obvious to me how this design will adjust for that (although maybe it is a simpler case?). Also wonder about documents without transcriptions. We may have a lot of combinations of these (image, no transcription; transcription, no image). It also looks like the example you're showing has a particular long description; I've seen a lot that are very short. Have you looked to see what the typical length is? Does that matter for this design? Also, in the database we will have more structured information available for at least some documents (people, places, etc). Are you thinking about where to include them? (I don't know how important they are to show first, just trying to think about what might be missing here.)
Thanks for including the possible ways this could fail. For number 2, I'm curious if you have a sense of how many nav elements is too many and when we would know what they are, or whether it's something we might find ourselves expanding. For number 1 and 3, I think it depends on which IIIF viewer we decide to use and how much time we want to invest in customizing it. It would be helpful to come up with a list of requirements and wants for the viewer to help us make that decision.
Thanks for highlighting the variations. Feedback on some of those:
Like Nick, I'm curious about how this design would need to change to work on mobile.
@thatbudakguy @rlskoeser thank you both for writing, your comments are super helpful – before I respond to your comments would you please take a look at the list I created of the decisions that need to be made for this section so that you can tell me if the list makes sense to you and what you need from me more immediately (from the list) as I’m revising and thinking about the doc detail view? You had mentioned building a rough interface for the project team to use iirc. How can I help you achieve that goal?
Please also tell me what parts of the content or what functionalities you want me to focus on too if applicable – because the list I have created would apply to all the content and functionalities.
@gissoo thanks for working on a list of decisions. Some questions:
In terms of implementing a preliminary document detail page in the short term, I think what I need is the content that should be displayed on the page, in what order, and any language and labeling. (Looking at your list again, I wonder if some of this falls under "content structure", and now I'm not sure what that means either.) I was thinking that for this preliminary version we would use a standard, uncustomized IIIF viewer to display images when they are available; I don't plan to integrate transcriptions yet because we won't have them in the right format for some time.
It occurred to me today that when you said you would work on a "low fidelity mock up", I expected something more like a wireframe. What you have looks more "designed" than that, if that makes sense — I think this may be what's giving Nick and me some difficulty about which aspects we should be giving feedback on.
Similarly, my confusion about the page vs. site navigation — there's no placeholder or indicator of where site-wide navigation would go (other than the "Geniza" in the corner), and some of the links seem like they provide additional information about the current document, but the others don't.
@gissoo thanks for working on a list of decisions. Some questions:
* which of the things you have listed need to be decided in the current phase? It looks like some things on your list apply for the final/full design for this page
@rlskoeser thank you for writing, your comment triggered a revision, I have added these: "menu/side bar position on page", "image option menu position on page", "image option menu navigation". I have kept the "styles for menu/side bar", and "styles for image option menu" – I think "styles" is not what I initially meant.
Re: what I think is important in the current phase are: content structure, page layout and menu/side bar position on page, image option menu position on page, image option menu navigation.
Correct, I have listed everything that has to do with this section.
* I'm not sure what "explored" / "can be explored more" mean exactly. Does "explored" mean something is finished? Does "can be explored more" mean that you intend to work on these things more, or only that you will work on them more if there is something that needs/merits more work?
"explored" means I feel pretty confident on the extent at which I have explored a particular aspect – till I do usability testing and find out what needs to be done – I'm always open to exploring more, but I have exhausted the options in my process to reach to what I have proposed
I just revised "can be explored more" to "needs more exploration" – it's an in progress mode – I have done some but more can be done
I have revised "needs more exploration" (the grey) category to "has not been explored" – I have not really touched this part yet even though I have thoughts on it and know what I would try to do with it
Do they make more sense now?
In terms of implementing a preliminary document detail page in the short term, I think what I need is the content that should be displayed on the page, in what order, and any language and labeling. (Looking at your list again, I wonder if some of this falls under "content structure", and now I'm not sure what that means either.) I was thinking that for this preliminary version we would use a standard, uncustomized IIIF viewer to display images when they are available; I don't plan to integrate transcriptions yet because we won't have them in the right format for some time.
great, "content that should be displayed on the page" is "content structure" and "in what order" is "page layout", and "language and labeling" is exactly that in my list :)
super helpful on transcriptions!! Thanks.
It occurred to me today that when you said you would work on a "low fidelity mock up", I expected something more like a wireframe. What you have looks more "designed" than that, if that makes sense — I think this may be what's giving Nick and me some difficulty about which aspects we should be giving feedback on.
Similarly, my confusion about the page vs. site navigation — there's no placeholder or indicator of where site-wide navigation would go (other than the "Geniza" in the corner), and some of the links seem like they provide additional information about the current document, but the others don't.
when you say "some of the links seem like they provide additional information about the current document, but the others don't." I'm not sure I understand, everything I have shared is about providing additional information about the current document – In the descriptions that I provided for this issue I did note that certain parts are not done yet (like the content structure and layout of the other pages)
@rlskoeser this occurred to me, so you are mentioning a placeholder for the nav of the entire site, that to me is separate from this issue, because if I'm providing a placeholder that means I should think through it thoroughly and decide where on the page it would appear – do you agree? Should I make a separate issue on that? That is way different than what I was trying to do here. I have thoughts on the site-wide menu but I haven't fully gotten to it yet. Do you similarly need a placeholder for the footer?
@gissoo thanks for your responses. I thought that was what "content structure" meant, but then I started to doubt myself for some reason.
So "explored" means complete for the current phase of design, but could be revised later based on usability testing or new discoveries?
- when you say "some of the links seem like they provide additional information about the current document, but the others don't." I'm not sure I understand, everything I have shared is about providing additional information about the current document – In the descriptions that I provided for this issue I did note that certain parts are not done yet (like the content structure and layout of the other pages)
I'm sort of thinking of it in terms of narrowing and broadening — the scholarship records gives you more information about this particular document (diving in deeper); but presumably explore fragment and shelf read take you elsewhere (broadening, zooming out) — they aren't specific to this particular document, and could be accessed from multiple different documents. (I'm not actually sure what "external sources" is.)
Why are these links not on your proposed sitemap? That would help me understand this better.
- @rlskoeser this occurred to me, so you are mentioning a placeholder for the nav of the entire site, that to me is separate from this issue, because if I'm providing a placeholder that means I should think through it thoroughly and decide where on the page it would appear – do you agree? Should I make a separate issue on that? That is way different than what I was trying to do here. I have thoughts on the site-wide menu but I haven't fully gotten to it yet. Do you similarly need a placeholder for the footer?
Yeah, I wondered about that as I wrote it — I know it's tricky because you aren't working on that part yet and you don't want to put something provisional because it could be distracting or misleading. The footer doesn't bother me as much... I think it's because I feel like I don't understand how the local nav relates to whatever larger nav we will have (which at least partly relates to my comments above — they don't all feel local to me). I'm willing to ignore / wait on that if you tell me to! It feels a little weird to be designing the "middle" of the site first, but this is one of the parts we care most about and probably needs more attention.
@gissoo thanks for your responses. I thought that was what "content structure" meant, but then I started to doubt myself for some reason.
So "explored" means complete for the current phase of design, but could be revised later based on usability testing or new discoveries?
- when you say "some of the links seem like they provide additional information about the current document, but the others don't." I'm not sure I understand, everything I have shared is about providing additional information about the current document – In the descriptions that I provided for this issue I did note that certain parts are not done yet (like the content structure and layout of the other pages)
I'm sort of thinking of it in terms of narrowing and broadening — the scholarship records gives you more information about this particular document (diving in deeper); but presumably explore fragment and shelf read take you elsewhere (broadening, zooming out) — they aren't specific to this particular document, and could be accessed from multiple different documents. (I'm not actually sure what "external sources" is.)
Why are these links not on your proposed sitemap? That would help me understand this better.
- @rlskoeser this occurred to me, so you are mentioning a placeholder for the nav of the entire site, that to me is separate from this issue, because if I'm providing a placeholder that means I should think through it thoroughly and decide where on the page it would appear – do you agree? Should I make a separate issue on that? That is way different than what I was trying to do here. I have thoughts on the site-wide menu but I haven't fully gotten to it yet. Do you similarly need a placeholder for the footer?
Yeah, I wondered about that as I wrote it — I know it's tricky because you aren't working on that part yet and you don't want to put something provisional because it could be distracting or misleading. The footer doesn't bother me as much... I think it's because I feel like I don't understand how the local nav relates to whatever larger nav we will have (which at least partly relates to my comments above — they don't all feel local to me). I'm willing to ignore / wait on that if you tell me to! It feels a little weird to be designing the "middle" of the site first, but this is one of the parts we care most about and probably needs more attention.
i don't think i have much to add to what @rlskoeser wrote, but as usual we see things similarly: the content, structure, and labeling of this page are the things that i think are most important right now. for me, that translates to numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 in the first section and numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 in the mobile section.
mobile is important to me for every page, and i think we need to consider it as soon as we can. designing for mobile forces you to address many challenges you don't have on a bigger screen, and so in a way mobile is the "most pure" version of something because it's the minimum amount of information you are comfortable with. when i work on styles, i write the styles for mobile first, and then layer on top of that to adjust it for bigger screens.
the nav is not as important for me in the context of this page (although it is important generally). if it makes things easier, i think it's fine to put off the question of the structure and placement of the nav since we don't know yet which pages will be in it.
i could see us testing the document detail page by developing an unstyled/wireframe version based on your designs, and then adding a "view on site" button to the django admin so that we can easily check what the page looks like for any document we have in the database, using "real" data. this page wouldn't have to have any navigation at all (since there's no other pages to navigate to) and would just focus on presenting the content/metadata of a single document. it also wouldn't have any interactions (aside from the IIIF viewer).
i don't think i have much to add to what @rlskoeser wrote, but as usual we see things similarly: the content, structure, and labeling of this page are the things that i think are most important right now. for me, that translates to numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 in the first section and numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 in the mobile section.
mobile is important to me for every page, and i think we need to consider it as soon as we can. designing for mobile forces you to address many challenges you don't have on a bigger screen, and so in a way mobile is the "most pure" version of something because it's the minimum amount of information you are comfortable with. when i work on styles, i write the styles for mobile first, and then layer on top of that to adjust it for bigger screens.
the nav is not as important for me in the context of this page (although it is important generally). if it makes things easier, i think it's fine to put off the question of the structure and placement of the nav since we don't know yet which pages will be in it.
i could see us testing the document detail page by developing an unstyled/wireframe version based on your designs, and then adding a "view on site" button to the django admin so that we can easily check what the page looks like for any document we have in the database, using "real" data. this page wouldn't have to have any navigation at all (since there's no other pages to navigate to) and would just focus on presenting the content/metadata of a single document. it also wouldn't have any interactions (aside from the IIIF viewer).
Thank you for all of the feedback you have given me here – I have taken them into consideration and have taken another approach – focusing on mobile and lowering the fidelity – I have created an epic with issues that it will contain for the document detail view. I'm going to close this issue, but will come back to your comments as I make more progress on the wireframes.
Here is the link to the document detail view
Note:
Description:
Designs include:
Designs do not include:
Context about the page structure:
How the proposal/idea can fail:
Note: I probably did more than you needed here, but couldn't stop as I already got into it. We don't have to agree on everything right now.
Questions:
Once you review, I will ask Marina and Stephanie to review as well.