-
Type:
Design
-
Resolution: Done
-
Priority:
Normal
-
None
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Component/s: Editing interface, User interface
Placing "relationships" in the redesign can be done in two ways:
1. We add relationships according to context. Say, for example in the "Add event" page the venue makes sense with time and date.
Pros
it goes with the flow in which we think about an event. It is morAll related information is chunked, not being asked randomly.
Sample Mockup for this
Cons
We will need to design this for every "Add xyz" page.
2. We have a relationship editor tab like we have now. With some default settings.
*Pros of this: *
All relationships in one box. Not a big change from how it is now. Same relationship editor can be used everywhere with defaults changed.
Our editors are already used to of this flow.
Cons
Well, not much really..except some information isn't placed where it is more related.
Sample Mockup for this
Feedback required on: Which option should we prefer, 1 or 2?
- is related to
-
MBS-9518 Default relationship types for entities
-
- Open
-
[MBS-9531] Placement of "Relationships" in Editor interfaces
1 looks better for me as well, and it's definitely preferable if doable. My main concern is what yvanzo mentions - how problematic it might be to add new relationships to it.
I might still go for a combination of the two, where a few relationships that are very basic to the entity (like place held and performers for events) would be in "special places", but other default rels (like members for bands) would be in the general relationship box. So, "should this be a bare minimum for the entity? If yes, introduce it into the flow, if not, to the box with it". This has the benefit that the bare minimum relationships will probably remain stable, while still allowing us to mark other relationships as "show by default in the relationships section".
1 looks much better, less abstract and more usable, but I can hardly tell if it is really doable for every entity type and relationship type, not to mention adaptability to further additional relationship types.
So, we have decided to use a combination of option 1 and 2 for our redesign.
All related fields will be placed together. An additional "Other relations" box will be present for rarely used relationship types, additional new relationship types, etc. The placement of the relationships will be decided as we go about the different editing interfaces.
Closing this ticket as of now!