Skip to end of metadata
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0
Go to start of metadata

Author, Editor ... Contributor Edit UI – Mockups

1.   Split Lists

 

Description

This is essentially the same design as the "Institutional / Institutional" credit section.  The system would retain the sequence of creators as entered by the user, however, because of the split presentation, there would be no way to construct a sequence of creators that contained different creator types.

Pros

  • Data entry is arguably quicker if a resource is mostly comprised of one creator type (e.g. documents may rarely require institutional authors)
  • Presentation is unambiguous – the user will won't likely enter an institution when they meant to enter an individual.

Cons

  • This widget takes up more vertical space relative to the other mockups for small numbers of resource creators.
  • User would not be able to, say, create a sequence where an institution was "sandwiched" between two individuals. 

2.   Unified – Multiline

Description

This widget allows the user to institutions and individuals in any order.   It differs from other "repeatable" fields on the system in that there would be two "add" buttons: one for adding individuals to the sequence, and another for adding institutions.   To conserve horizontal space, the person fields are presented on multiple lines and their labels are embedded in the text-entry region.  An icon on the left side further indicates the type of record the user is entering.

Pros

  • Users can enter either type of creators in any order they wish.
  • More compact for small numbers of creators

Cons

  • In my opinion, this UI looks "busy" as you increase the number of items in the list.  This may just be me.
  • Widget takes up more space than the other mockups for a list containing several items.

3.   Unified – Tabular

Description

This widget looks similar to the author-entry section on the document edit page.  However, with widget the user implicitly specifies the resource creator type depending on which fields the user populates.   For example, if the user enters text in the "institution" field and leaves the other text fields blank the system will interpret this as an institution entry (and will indicate with a miniature icon on left side) 

Pros

  • Most compact format of the three designs
  • Quickest data entry experience, no need for two "add another" buttons.

Cons

  • Presentation is potentially more confusing than the other formats.
  • Field widths are small (note the text in the institution entry)
  • Behavior for the autocomplete dropdowns would be tricky to perfect and could lead to confusion if not done right. 
Labels
  • None

5 Comments

Hide/Show Comments

  1. Jan 07, 2011

    adam brin

    I'm definitely a fan of #2.  We can definitely clean it up a bit and make it feel tighter, but we regain some space and read-ability in the form (quick mockup below).  PS, if we're going to really do re-ordering, we're going to need an additional tab or widget for that too.

    1. Jan 07, 2011

      Matt Cordial

      I like #2 as well. You don't necessarily need a separate widget to do reordering. We use the JQuery UI Sortable effect to do reordering in the ASU Repository. It does not need anything special on the UI side other than what you provide to users to indicate that the elements are drag-and-dropable. 

  2. Jan 10, 2011

    Allen Lee

    UI/UX wise I think #2 is the best. The icon quickly shows you the type (though I'd prefer a different icon for institution.. not sure what though - "institution" is a hard concept to iconify).

    Another con on #2 though is that when you're viewing a set of resource creators, you're not quite sure which is the last name and which is the first name unless the names in there are abundantly clear. Which leaves poor John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt out in the cold.

    Then there's the complexity of implementation that applies to all of these. Perhaps you can also add estimated time to completion for each?

  3. Jan 10, 2011

    Joshua Watts

    Would throw my vote to #3... makes the most sense if I put on my 'data entry' hat. Tabular, each row corresponds to a record & each column to a variable. I like it.
     
    I'm *not* a fan of having multiple lines per 'entity' record in this context - weird, even if you manage to clean up the busy-ness of Jim's mockup.

    Just my $0.02.

    ps - I prefer just having the one "add resource creator" rather than the two buttons (person/institution) seen in the other options.

  4. Jan 10, 2011

    Francis McManamon

    I like #2, as revised by AB in his comment.  Seems to me to provide the clearest llayout showing that individual creators are associated with institutions, and that institutions have independent roles as creators.  FPM