Request feedback on JWST AUI changes

[stscijgbot]

Issue JP-672 was created by Alicia Canipe:

The ASB/JWST Ops team are planning to create JIRA Issues to make some modest changes to the MAST Portal/AUI for JWST. The changes are described on the following pages:

• [ASB/JWST Recommendation: UX-01|https://innerspace.stsci.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=159749622]
• [ASB/JWST Recommendation: UX-02|https://innerspace.stsci.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=156471452]

Their focused goal with these recommendations is to improve the Portal user experience by, essentially, decluttering. That is, change the default to present fewer displayed selection filters, and fewer columns of information in the results table, and to organize and document them better. For the most part users will still have access to all the filters and columns as before, though in a few cases certain attributes make no sense as search criteria (e.g., the value of the file checksum) and will be removed.

While these changes are pretty innocuous, feedback from a broader set of user representatives would be appreciated. If you are interested, please review the linked recommendations and offer comments on the Confluence pages. Comments of the form “please leave filter X as default” or “please change filter Y to be non-default” would be especially helpful. The priority for this work is up to the managers, but they would like to see these changes in place by JWST launch.

[stscijgbot]

Comment by Kevin Stevenson: It would be helpful to indicate the type of time-series observation (transit, eclipse, or phase curve) and to filter on a given type.  The type of observation can usually be deduced from the Phase Range special requirement, which hopefully is included in the header.

[stscijgbot]

Comment by James Muzerolle: Grating (when applicable) and exp_type (i.e., instrument mode) are essential filterable attributes for JWST that are currently missing in the CAOM searches.

[stscijgbot]

Comment by David Law: For the advanced search, it would be useful to put the Proposal ID search box much earlier in the available options.  Prior to flight this seems more generally useful than RA/DEC/Object Name/Target classification.  It would be useful for this search to automatically figure out any leading zeros (e.g., '825' should work just as well as '00825').  +1 for James' request for instrument mode (e.g., MRS/Imager/LRS/Coron) and grating settings (BAND, in the case of MRS).

For search results, it would be helpful to be able to see the instrument mode, detector, and BAND keyword values by default.  Seeing (for instance) 'MIRI, MIRIFUSHORT, MEDIUM' for the instrument, detector, and band would be great.  At present 'MISSION' duplicates 'PROJECT' with both set to JWST, and 'WAVEBAND' = Infrared takes up valuable space that could perhaps better be used for the instrument mode (since infrared is mostly a given if mission=jwst).

[stscijgbot]

Comment by Alicia Canipe: From [~jstans] and the NIRCam team:

 Ability to sort by a column in the search results table (e.g. Observation ID).

 # of files for each level should not change as data proceeds from level-1 -> level-2, etc. E.G. if there are 61 level-1 products corresponding to a given search, the 'Calibration Level' box on the search results should say 61 level-1 regardless of whether some/all of that data has been processed to level-2.

Ability to search for and retrieve data from a single detector.

Ability to search/filter on Observation number w/in a program.

Ability to minimize the download basket subwindow.

User preferences for 'edit columns' in the search results window should persist over multiple searches within a given login session (at least).

For (coordinated?) parallel observations the staged data should only include the instrument selected in the filter. E.G. for program 773 if I search/filter for NIRCam, I still get all the FGS files included in the download basket (presumably because the root observation ID is the same for them as for the NIRCam data that was taken in parallel).

Is there an API to get the images?

[stscijgbot]

Comment by Vincent Geers: I noticed a usability issue (Safari, macOS) in the Advanced Search form:

By design, if you start typing a value in the search field for one of the search filters, the archive UI will show a pop-up with partially matched values, to make it easier and quick to pick the correct value.

However, it would appear that the field text box for some of the search filters (e.g. Instrument, Target Name, Target Classification, ...) appear to be labelled in a way that makes the browser interpret them as a text field that should be auto-completed with names from the Address Book.

As a result, if you start typing, you will see the MAST suggestions for matches, but they can be partially or completely blocked by the Address Book suggestions pop-up. I will attach a screenshot for illustration. !190531_mast_feedback_addressbook.png!

[stscijgbot]

Comment by Sarah Kendrew: I second [~dlaw]'s suggestions about the proposal ID. Having to add the correct number of leading zeros is too easy of a failure mode. I would also like to have the proposal ID search box much higher in the search options.