I’m not sure that this is a valuable sort. For instance, she wanted “Shapeoko 3 XXL”, and didn’t realize that it was a Machine Shop tool. Maybe put the committee at the end?? So that newer folks don’t have to know what committee “owns” the tool that they’re interested in?
Beth is correct about about the sort order being a challenge to use. It is difficult for many members(not just new ones) to find things. OTOH, smaller tools could be duplicates and require some type of parent/committee relationship. This has always been sub optimal for as long as I remember. It is like the original organizational structure was outgrown but never updated.
- [TYPE] How/when do members actually use class vs events in searches
- [CATEGORY] seems to be synonymous for committee as used
- [BY TOOL] members mostly have zero idea of who owns a tools - especially prospective members
- [BY ROOM] This also seems backward when read. Couldn’t it be sorted and grouped by [TYPE, NAME]
I appreciate the opinions/feedback. Among the problems here is the maintenance of these tags, and the use of the tags, are sometimes different. People who use them often, vs. rarely, also different. The idea of tagging tools with the committee was (probably) largely made by folks who maintain them, and use them often, making COMMITTEE - TOOL make a lot of sense. For occasional browsers, probably less so (though an argument might be made for this helping occasional browsers connect the dots of which committee manages which equipment). I’d think searchable filters would help bridge that gap, so that’s probably where I’d go if were a programmer.
I disagree, but then one of my favorite filters is “Welding”, which doesn’t directly correlate to a committee name, just to confirm we will never please all the people all the time.
I don’t understand how the suggestion is different than the existing.
Yellow highlight being TYPE, green NAME…
As with all things, there is room for improvement. As with all things volunteer-labored, there is room for volunteers to help with that improvement. Put an item into Jira or edit an existing one with improvement suggestions. Reach out to @Team_Infrastructure to discover their meeting days/times and bring a plan of action, rolled up sleeves, and a flexible willingness to pitch in. I’m certain Evan, Justin, and the rest of the crew will appreciate the help.
I realize this is one among hundreds of items that could use attention
Think about when you scanning things in a list box- (UI design). Area, Committee, blah blah is redundant within a section.
I would usually populate a list box like this:
Digital Media - LAB
Electronics - LAB
Thunder - LASER
Blitzen - LASER
Or more likely:
Science - Biology
---- Class Rooms ----
— Next Category —
Hm. I better understand your suggestion, now, but truth be told (and I’m guessing this is part of why it’s not as coherent/expedient as one might like) that doesn’t make any sense to me, either, since Digital Media - LAB isn’t a lab like Thunder is a Laser or Science has a biology section in their “lab”…
And then there’s the fact that our rooms aren’t neatly “Class room” or “workshop” or…whatever.
Damned Makerspaces, not fitting neatly into molds!
I do not disagree. I was discussing this with @Julie-Harris and @jphelps on Saturday. We could use a small dose of well thought out standards based upon industry best practices. Not every member has had the pleasure of designing database structures, or code libraries were naming conventions are absolutely required in order to stave off chaos.
I disagree. I don’t see the room sort as particularly valuable for the folks wanting to take a class. I see it more as a tool for teachers. “I want to give a class, and use Interactive. Let me see when Interactive is being used.”
So I put together a prototype for filtering the dropdown:
You can play around with the working prototype here: https://amli.mandar.dev/