Timur's Browse view suffers greatly by not having a breadcrumb to guide the user through the project's data hierarchy. Since we are determined that the project models form a tree, every record will have a chain of parents rooted in the project's root record. We can then add a breadcrumb showing this record's position in the hierarchy.
How should the breadcrumb look? There are two possibilities:
1) Use the model names. E.g.:
Project > Labor > Monster > Victim
2) Use the record names. E.g.:
The Twelve Labors of Hercules > The Nemean Lion > Nemean Lion > Outis Koutsounadis
Both of these are unsatisfying - the model names does not actually situate us in record space, but the record names do not clue us in to their type. This suggests:
3) The conjunction:
project: The Twelve Labors of Hercules > labor: The Nemean Lion > monster: Nemean Lion > victim: Outis Koutsounadis
might grow verbose, but is probably the most useful. We can, if we like, only show the model names on hover, etc.
Timur's Browse view suffers greatly by not having a breadcrumb to guide the user through the project's data hierarchy. Since we are determined that the project models form a tree, every record will have a chain of parents rooted in the project's root record. We can then add a breadcrumb showing this record's position in the hierarchy.
How should the breadcrumb look? There are two possibilities: 1) Use the model names. E.g.:
Project > Labor > Monster > Victim2) Use the record names. E.g.:The Twelve Labors of Hercules > The Nemean Lion > Nemean Lion > Outis KoutsounadisBoth of these are unsatisfying - the model names does not actually situate us in record space, but the record names do not clue us in to their type. This suggests: 3) The conjunction:
project: The Twelve Labors of Hercules > labor: The Nemean Lion > monster: Nemean Lion > victim: Outis Koutsounadismight grow verbose, but is probably the most useful. We can, if we like, only show the model names on hover, etc.