past two months?
I don’t understand
It is in your previous communication.
What?? that’s a mistake, am sorry for that
Did you just forget to correct it?
I have worked on it
@darius thank you for your feedback, we have made some adjustments to the UI design.
cc @dkayiwa @rubailly @shakira210791 @hadijah315 @christopherkala @waweru
Quick comments here:
- save space by saying “29 concepts, version 2” on one line.
- we don’t want to show the # of mappings in the OpenMRS-facing app
- date created is not very important, and actually it’s misleading. I would get rid of it. (If you want to preserve that effect, which is pretty, use this for the owner.
- Owner text is bigger than the name itself. Also, maybe say “CIEL (organization)” or “plmercereau (user)” to indicate which is which.
4 Likes
This is much better
1 Like
Below is the link to the sprint planning call https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/ytl/YyZwjPpbs4WtrFfiCzmjJjoEtCqXC4a6Bsd4p2MH9ec=?hl=en_US
Kyampeire Hadijah{@hadijah315 } Shakira Ndagire Seruwagi {@shakira210791 } Christopher Kalule {@christopherkala } Emmanuel Ndukwe{@emasys } Waweru Mwaura {@waweru } Rurangirwa Bailly {@rubailly }
3 Likes
Listened to most of the demo after I had to leave… and unfortunately couldn’t be on for the discussion about the card results versus table search results. At first, I thought that the cards might have been good since there were visual clues like different colors for different source types, etc. When they all look the same, I don’t think there is any advantage over a more traditional result. Especially when it comes to Concepts, like was said by Darius on the call, this would not work at all. I do think there might need to be some discussion about versioning versus date of publishing, since not everyone would know the relationship between the version number and the date of release.
1 Like
Thank you @akanter. But, after the sprint planning that happened yesterday @emasys made changes that were left on one of his previous posts. feedback from Darius concerning sources And we agreed on the table like format to present concepts
Hello @darius hoping that you are enjoying your vacation, I would like to share with you the UI for concepts, maybe you can give me feedback where I need to change. cc @dkayiwa @rubailly
Quick comments:
- generally good
- Depending on which workflow this is, don’t need to show the source name (i.e. If we are browsing a source, which is the workflow I want to see first, and thus all concepts are from the same source, don’t waste space with that column)
- Why is the word wrap on the first column not the same as the full column width?
- I imagine combining class and datatype into one column would save space
- Consider making name column a slightly larger font instead of bold.
- We have usually put the id as the first column
- As a more realistic example, use the CIEL dictionary (rather than this set of indicators)
Thank you @darius
- As for the source name, my task was to view all concepts from different sources, therefore the source names are not the same, Its @shakira210791 who is browsing in a given source.
- For the word wrap I will fix it.
- I will combine class and datatype.
- I will work on the name column and ID column too. I will get back to you soon.
1 Like
I have worked on the feedback but for the word wrap it appears so because the columns are few when another column is added it will be fine.
I have made all the changes you can check the new uploaded snapshots
I haven’t seen the actual story, so don’t know what the extent of this sprint is. I would think that we’d want to capture more of the functionality we see in OpenMRS now on searching concepts:
- Smart search on name so that the most likely term appears first regardless of alpha sort.
- If the returned name is not the fully specified name, this should appear as well. Perhaps in another column.
- If this is only to select which concepts to potentially add to a subset, I think I would still want to see which maps applied. Darius, I know you suggested SAME-AS only, but a column with something like: SNOMED CT 47475903 (same-as), ICD-10-WHO I34.39 (narrower than), etc. would be helpful.