Drop down multi-menu

[i2xzy]

Stephen Owen 8 months ago I want to consider a drop down multi-menu which can be easily expanded/enlarged/added to. So, in addition to current labels/boxes in each species/clade node, there is one with less important/relevant details, such as venom or egg laying or colour change or reproduction type or longevity or link to vulnerability etc. This can be used for selection purposes too. This method could be used to replace some current boxes and would be quicker too, and you can just click, and not even write anything.

[i2xzy]

Casey Trimm 7 months ago To clarify, would this allow a user to basically "tag" a clade with properties like "venom" or "egg laying"?

If so, we could probably create a searchable list of tags like that and just let a user search for tags and click to add/remove them. We'd just need a list of tags, and decide whether or not a user should be able to add a new tag (this is sketchy because if someone puts "egg laying", but then someone doesn't see it and instead puts "lays eggs", we would get tags that mean the same thing but are different, which we want to avoid somehow).

[i2xzy]

Stephen Owen 7 months ago Users will not be able to manipulate or change this drop down menu, it will be created and controlled by us. The purpose is to save having so much clutter on a screen (which is relatively trivial data and all related). So, when a user comes to enter the data for this, s/he is presented with a drop down menu (which could be called something like, additional info), rather than go through a busy screen and have to enter words each time, (like venomous', or 'egg laying'), the options are already there for ease and speed, just for clicking on or ticking a box. If we feel additional criteria needs adding to the drop down menu, like unique features or something, we can add this, though that example would require writing. So whether we use egg laying or lays eggs, wont affect a user, unless it involves doing a search, and they don't know which words to enter, though, 'egg' should suffice.

[i2xzy]

Emmanuel Proulx 3 months ago My 2 cents.

I think we should have a system to allow users to create new entry boxes. I call this Dynamic Fields. Bear with me...

I was reading this document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dDnVucmLNgYXl7CMOMH9BosopFPAr_Ps9Ro8xDf1myw/edit#gid=142889130 and in the Entry Boxes, I noticed things such as “Flight” and “venomous” and “electric”. And this made me think:

Venomous would probably be specific to a certain clade and its subclades. It wouldn’t be applicable to all the parent and sibling clades because it makes no sense to say a bacteria is venomous. Venom is generated by glands which bacteria cannot have.

This is as opposed to “period of existence” and “coloquial name” which will probably be for ALL clades.

So my opinion is that certain entry boxes would be ideal candidates for the idea of Dynamic Fields. This is how it would work:

1- Dynamic Fields are user-defined and become available to insert into all child clades.

2- You first define the Dynamic Field, by entering a unique name and a type. We could also have an “optional/mandatory” checkbox. (For mandatory, until someone sets the value it will show "Unspecified".)

3- The Dynamic Field is attached to a certain clade (and thus all its children).

4- Types are predetermined. Date, Number, URL, string, etc. Also the Enumeration type, which contains all possible values.

5- When a user wants to add a field, he goes to a clade, and hits a plus button. He then chooses the field to add. The field is inserted into the current clade. Finally he enters the value of the field. Mandatory fields do not need to be added; they would be always visible.

Please provide your feedback.

[i2xzy]

Stephen Owen 3 months ago Initial feedback, based on the limited info I saw in Slack:

Yes, this was my document, and I like the idea., providing it has safety protocols. Using venom as an example of many things that could be used. I suggested a drop down menu, with these named features, so for speed, we just need to click a dot/tick a box if it has that attribute. Venom is something that has evolved independently, many times in evolution, and if the field were searchable or selectable/filterable, we could instantly highlight all venomous creatures, and, because of our unique visual structure, we could see if there is some sort of link, tht cannot be noticed otherwise, because our visual database enables us to see the wood for for trees. Does this make sense?

Further response. Would these fields be limited to the clade, and not be universalised? If not, why not? (I see benefits for both, depending on what is used). Whilst flight, for example, is not specific to a clade as it occurs in reptiles, birds, mammals and insects, it could be limited to those clades, and probably providing they are monophyletic. btw, do chickens fly? Many birds don’t, so does that need annotating? But things like venom occur very widespread and venom and poison are similar and are often ambiguous, which my cause problems, unless there is a maybe/don’t know option.

I like the idea of being able to add.

Is it secure from abuse/infiltration/inexperience & poor strategies?

In case it is relevant, we are not planning on going open source.

Being based on evolution, and not competing with standard encyclopedias, we don’t need to duplicate things, as tempting as it might be to add lots of pretty pics and discuss the mating habits of the lesser speckled red rumped toad fish, so we will try to stay specific, which saves us a lot of time and enables us to stay focussed and friends with our counterpart projects.

[i2xzy]

Emmanuel Proulx 3 months ago First I don’t want us to talk past each other or to be in violent agreement. In my system, when you first DEFINE a Dynamic Field, and it’s available in ALL clades (universally defined). Second step is to ATTACH it to one or more clades. It’s not attached to parent or sibling/cousin clades. Last step is to EDIT the field to give it a value. So an ADMIN would create a new field named “Flight” and then he would attach it to the clade Nephrozoa. Then an EDITOR would be able to add this field to a clade underneath Nephrosoa (say, open the Trochilidae clade and add the Flight field, and give it the value “flapping”). The editor would not be able to define or attach fields. The field is not universally available because you can’t edit it for some clades.

Yes, this was my document, and I like the idea., providing it has safety protocols. Using venom as an example of many things that could be used. I suggested a drop down menu, with these named features, so for speed, we just need to click a dot/tick a box if it has that attribute.

For speed it would make sense but I suspect there will be thousands of these attributes possible. So they shouldn’t be visible unless they are mandatory, me thinks.

Not only that but I suspect there will be different classes of ‘venomous’ categories such as Proteolytic, Hemotoxic, Neurotoxic, Cytotoxic. Thus a dropdown would be future-proofing, as opposed to many checkboxes.

Venom is something that has evolved independently, many times in evolution, and if the field were searchable or selectable/filterable, we could instantly highlight all venomous creatures, and, because of our unique visual structure, we could see if there is some sort of link, that cannot be noticed otherwise, because our visual database enables us to see the wood for for trees. Does this make sense?

I understand what you’re saying. In that case you would assign the same field to multiple clades. Think that a very small percentage of clades are venomous. And when one clade is venomous, most of its sub-clades would also be venomous. So it makes sense that this trait be inherited. In fact there are clades whose intrinsic characteristic is only its venom. E.g. Toxicofera

Would these fields be limited to the clade, and not be universalised?

If you want a field available in all clades, it should not be a Dynamic Field; it should be a normal field such as “name” and “period of existence”. This is by definition. Your example of flight is excellent so let’s explore it.

Flight never occurs in eubacteria or archaea. This is a huge part of the tree that should not get that checkbox. It doesn’t happen in the vast majority of eukaryotes. You have to drill down before you get to any clades that can have powered flight. The topmost clade that includes reptiles, birds, mammals and insects is Nephrozoa. So you could assign Flight field in that clade and you’d have all of them covered. (In fact I think it makes more to sense to assign it twice; once in Amniota and once in Anthropoda, but that’s just me.) Also there’s many kinds of flight, so it would make sense to have this as a drop-down enumeration containing {unassigned, falling, parachuting, gliding, flapping, ballooning, soaring, flightless}

Is it secure from abuse/infiltration/inexperience & poor strategies?

Like I said to Casey: If someone has the right to delete a clade, he should have the ability to define and assign fields.

In case it is relevant, we are not planning on going open source.

We should discuss that, but not relevant I think for now.

Being based on evolution, and not competing with standard encyclopedias, we don’t need to duplicate things, as tempting as it might be to add lots of pretty pics and discuss the mating habits of the lesser speckled red rumped toad fish, so we will try to stay specific, which saves us a lot of time and enables us to stay focused and friends with our counterpart projects.

Also not relevant but if we wanted to we could compete with them :)

[i2xzy]

Stephen Owen 3 months ago This dynamic thing is deeper/better than I am that familiar with, so providing that you understand my points and you can do better, that’s great. I must set aside time to see why it is superior and preferable to just having it universal, and simply not filling it out if it is not needed.

I actively want, seek and bow down to superior ideas to improve, what I consider, my own high personal standard/aims for the project.

We can also meet, with Casey of course and Emily and/ maybe others, to discuss what I want/hope the ideal programme to look like, so we can gear (now) towards that, or at least ready or incorporate such options to be implemented later (to ensure we never lose the ability to put something in place or have to go backwards).

We don’t need to go down the path of things, like types of venom, though we can refer to it in the notes. Toxicofera (a personal favourite of mine) may well not be a clade, and may contain non venomous snakes/lizards.

Most Eukaryotes are probably venomous and most Eukaryotes probably fly.

Re: We don’t want to compete.

Well, I AM up to compete, but it is not something I feel should be publicised at our early stage, until we are accepted and used by an increasing professional body of people. By then or given some time, the range of other things I hope to incorporate, we will be the preferred place to go for a number of reasons, and we can then justify adding, though it my mean starting from scratch in some fields, though with adequate funding and/or a good upload programme, to import data from elsewhere, we can radically speed that up, coupled with an alternative grid/detail view to complement our current form type view.

[i2xzy]

Emmanuel Proulx 3 months ago I doubt that most eukaryotes are venomous because few of them have glands that secrete venom. Many are poisonous though.

I think the best thing to do is to show biologists some kind of mock-up of what I have in mind and ask them what they think. I'll do a mock-up later.

[i2xzy]

Stephen Owen 3 months ago Good idea on the biologists side, though we (in admin/HR) need to be pushing our biologists to react, so will add that to mu bucket.

Not directly related, but I didn't know, many creatures are poisonous and not venomous. Maybe it's my maths. Is it the same for flight - most Eukryote not being able to?

I was thinking of just animals actually, Emmanuel, so I'm sure you are right!