add links to linked resources into the article summary page?

[myrmoteras]

Looking at the summary page in TB, it seems to undersell what we have.

Should we add links to all the uses of an article?

• Zenodo ID https://zenodo.org/record/7907628#.ZF-TTXZBz8A
• GBIF article https://www.gbif.org/dataset/ea4b18f8-7e51-4090-a706-3641f66d0677
• Original article DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.870.2113
• Figures on Zenodo via Ocellus eg DOI=10.5852/ejt.2023.870.2113
• SIBiLS ID
• Zoobank ID

[gsautter]

The data the summary is generated from doesn't actually contain these identifiers, otherwise there would have long been respective links ... would need to fetch them from the stats with a JavaScript call.

[gsautter]

Adding the links via a callback to the stats now, see for instance https://treatment.plazi.org/GgServer/summary/FFABFFCEFFBC6357B25DEC5AFFDD5416 (no PubMed and PMC IDs) or https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/summary/FFE1EF6CCD23FFC1FF9DFFDAFFCAFF9B (rare case of all article level IDs actually present)

Any preferences regarding the order of the links?

[myrmoteras]

@gsautter Where does it show up?

[gsautter]

On the right, under "Downloads", just like in the treatment pages.

[myrmoteras]

Why to hide this, which are not really downloads but I athef put them prominently where the other links are in the front page?

[gsautter]

Why to hide this, which are not really downloads but I athef put them prominently where the other links are in the front page?

Easy enough to re-label "Downloads" to "Links & Downloads" ... I'm not really a fan of stacking all these links on top of the beef of the page, as a user who comes to the summary page is most likely interested in the list of treatments rather than all these beautiful links ... same for the treatment pages proper, where we might even want to slim down the part between title and treatment text, as the latter is what people come to the pages for, and forcing them to scroll past the links before even getting to see the text isn't exactly what I'd expect as a reader.

[myrmoteras]

need be discussed. I see this differently.

[flsimoes]

While I agree that it will be too "hidden" (not really hidden, but in this day and age where people's attention span is severely diminished it gets more complicated) in the "Links & Downloads" area, and that we should discuss an alternative, I'm inclined to agree with Guido that, as a user, it is not interesting to have so many links before the actual treatment. Of course it all boils down to what the user wants, but considering that treatments-proper are the main item in the page, they shouldn't be too far down.

I've asked the people in the office for their opinions and, perhaps, some suggestions.

What I can suggest is that we add a links drop-down menu here (one of those with an arrowhead):

Alternatively, we could keep it in the sidemenu, but find ways of making it more evident

[truschel]

Hi I agree with Felipe. So many links before the treatment could be confusing. It would be more apparent to me if we added the links in the menu. But I like the Guido idea to change "Downloads" for "Links". Perhaps, the first alternative is better visually.

[flsimoes]

@jugiora suggested having icons on the side, instead of links, though that might be a bit heavy to open for every single page

I guess it would be something like this:

[myrmoteras]

one idea could be to add a new tab below the download tab and label it reuse or similar, to indicate that this are different views based on the reuse of the data we produce.

I am not such a great fan of logos, because they all have different formats, need to take care of since they are based on figures that need be stored somewhere, and we might want to look at the insertio of visual queues in a next versio of pages?

an example of how such links are displayed is in EJT , and we just use the same terminology, eg GBIF, BLR, etc.