Open martinhannigan opened 1 month ago
+1
-1 as from an organisation perspective it depends on which business I'm in. For IXP it could make more sense listing Exchanges first instead of Networks. More brain is needed before we make any changes.
-1 as from an organisation perspective it depends on which business I'm in. For IXP it could make more sense listing Exchanges first instead of Networks. More brain is needed before we make any changes.
All that says is users other than IX's don't matter which we don't agree on.
However, making this a user configurable option is reasonable to address and "all" user benefit.
Thanks!
-M<
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When I click from the top of a companies org object the output displayed is a page with different objects ordered as such:
-Facilities -Networks -Exchanges -Campuses
Who is affected by the problem?
Users of PDB
What is the impact?
Confusion and misinterpretation of object value.
Describe the solution you'd like
I suggest that order is flawed hierarchically and from an information presentation view. From an information organization perspective, I'd suggest the order would be more readable and useful as such:
-Campuses (contracting multiple facilities in a city since we already know what city we are looking for) -Networks (since we can't get between facilities without a network that can do that) -Facilities (if all else fails, do it the hard way or for a more specific regardless) -Exchanges (if I can't a accomplish all the above, then Exchanges don't matter)
Do you think this feature will require a formal design?
No, I gave the design above. The ordering should be relatively uncomplicated.
What is the proposed priority?
I'm sure this will be tagged UI. What is the schedule for new UI rollout?
Provide a rationale for any/all of the above
Making PeeringDB Great.