mononoken
commented
1 year ago It now occurs to me there could be option 3. Use both the previous options. You can group notes in journals, but that is not required for notes. Although, this option is basically option 2, just with added verbiage for the users benefit. It seems to answer this question, we need to decide how notes will be filtered beyond this very macro view.
Campaigns seems vague and could potentially confuser users in the future.
"Campaign" is a term used in RPGs for referring to a story-line that players play through. Players can have multiple characters through the same campaign. Players may also have multiple campaigns with the same character. If groups of notes are referred to as campaigns, this could be confusing to players.
There are already words for "groups of notes". "Notepad", "notebook", and "journal" immediately come to mind.
We could also just refer to groups of notes as "notes". Do we need a grouping system for notes as a default, or is it enough for users to group notes based on ownership by the user? This question seems to infer two paths we could take:
The upside to option 1 is that notes are grouped in large batches by default. This would make it easier for users to have individual journals for each character they have. They could group these batches however they wanted, so they could even have notes grouped by campaign instead (if they had multiple characters in the same campaign and wanted to keep the notes together).
The downside to option 1 is that if a user wanted to group notes from multiple journals, that would need to be implemented somehow, as they would be separate by default.
The plus and minuses for option 2 are basically the inverses.