suggestion: workflow-editor-style invocation of tools against current history

[eschen42]

kind/enhancement area/UI-UX area/histories

Here is my idea of how users might interact with the current history in a way that is as intuitive as composing workflows in the workflow editor. I will not be the least bit offended if this issue is closed as "won't fix" because it is deemed unnecessary or overlaps with other suggestions. (I did search for other issues like this without finding any.)

I find that I and other users have difficulty finding the correct input datasets when invoking a tool against the current history. Although the dropdown to select an input dataset for a tool is very helpful, choosing the right one from a crowded history is easiest only with the most judicious naming of datasets. When I am assisting users learning the tools they need to process their data, they ask me, "How do you know which datasets to choose?" My (unsatisfying) response is, "Because I am familiar with the data-processing workflow and effectively have the diagram in my head. If you are doing the same thing over and over, your best bet is to compose a workflow in the workflow editor, but if you are invoking many tools ad hoc then you sort of have to visualize the data-flow between tools in your head."

The workflow editor makes it much easier to see the logical flow of datasets from tool to tool. It would be very nice to have a similar way to interact with the current history. Here is a moderately detailed example of what this might look like, not meant so much as a description of what should be done as what I can think of to try to make interacting with a history as intuitive as interacting with a workflow:

• A switch to toggle the visual mode could be presented on the "gear" menu in the right pane of the "analyze data" view;
  • layout could be adjusted (as is the case for the workflow editor) and would need to be persisted.
• Previous invocations of tools
  • could be laid out in the center canvas as tools are in the workflow editor
    • (except without the "x" because one can only delete datasets, not tool-invocations);
  • could be rendered as the corresponding tools rendered by the workflow editor;
  • could be colored by status (green/yellow/red/blue/grey);
  • could, when clicked-on, display the resultant datasets in the right-hand pane, as they currently are displayed in the right-hand pane of the history ("Analyze data") view.
    • Perhaps "view detail" could open details in the bottom half of the pane;
    • the response to the "view data" and "visualize" buttons would need to be figured out for this context, e.g., they could be either disabled or display in another browser tab or window;
    • the "rerun" button could paint an "unrun tool" onto the center canvas.
• Data-flows could connect previous tool-invocations with (immutable) noodles as in the workflow editor.
• To run a tool, the user could select it from the left pane as is done in the current "Analyze data" view (or use the "rerun" button from a dataset as mentioned above).
  • The tool could appear as it does in the workflow editor, colored white;
    • only this tool would have an "x" button and a "run" button (perhaps a right-arrow) to the right of the tool name.
  • only one white, "unrun tool" would be permitted on the canvas at a time - the user would have to delete it before they could add another unrun tool;
  • clicking on the tool could display parameters on the right-hand pane, as for the current workflow editor;
  • input datasets could be selected by creating noodles as in the workflow editor - these noodles could be deleted anytime prior to running the tool;
  • the user could choose to invoke the currently unrun tool either of two ways:
    • by clicking the "run" button for the tool in the center pane (see above);
    • from "run tool" in the "gear" menu on the right-had pane.

[hexylena]

Just my small input (I have no control of project priorities or human resource allocation), but this sounds really neat. I imagine it would be a huge amount of work (hence friendliness tag.)

I'm reminded a bit of the iPlant interface to running jobs which tried to mimic a desktop, giving you folders to organise datasets and then would pop up little windows to run tools or workflows. I really didn't love that interface, the metaphor was OK but not great.

This sounds like a great research project and a really useful way to visualise what was done. You could lay out jobs by time, things to the left in the past, things to the right progressing (maybe not cross-cultural and some would prefer the other way) as the user worked through time on their analysis. You could collapse workflow runs into just a small box, utilising sub-workflows, or you could expand it to show users really every step that happened and progress.

[eschen42]

@erasche The auto-layout algorithm and collapsibility would be nice to have and design. Indeed, busy histories (and workflows) are overwhelming currently and could benefit from some simplification.

That being said, however: I think that harmonizing the way that one works with a history and the way that one edits a workflow would make it less confusing for some users (such as myself), which would mean that the user would expect that explicit changes that they make to the layout would be saved (as is the case for the workflow editor).

[mblue9]

I find that I and other users have difficulty finding the correct input datasets when invoking a tool against the current history.

Yes, same situation here.

busy histories (and workflows) are overwhelming currently and could benefit from some simplification.

Yes, totally agree. I just had another user tell me yesterday that they tried Galaxy but the confusing history drove them away. The current (painful) history view is the biggest Galaxy issue for me.

I don't know if this belongs in this issue, but just to add, a proteomics user showed me the Perseus interface and how they find the layout there easy/intuitive to follow, see the right panel below. Users can see the flow of dataset connections as a graph (sort of similar to the workflow-editor), so it's much easier for them to follow what's going on. Wondering if something like that is possible.