Forum Posts Feed
Zavala - An open source outliner for Macs, iPads, and iPhones
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > Last ›
Posted by SheetPlanner
Nov 2, 2021 at 12:00 PM
Maurice,
What about ‘Custom Tags’?
In SheetPlanner we use that term to describe columns that you set up yourself.
Peter
Posted by SheetPlanner
Nov 2, 2021 at 12:00 PM
....I mean we use the term ‘Custom Columns’
Peter
SheetPlanner wrote:
Maurice,
>What about ‘Custom Tags’?
>
>In SheetPlanner we use that term to describe columns that you set up
>yourself.
>
>Peter
Posted by Maurice Parker
Nov 2, 2021 at 09:01 PM
We keep coming back to Tags, so there must be something there. We probably just need to figure out a way to differentiate between the current outline tags and the new ones.
Since the new tags would be key/value pairs, what about “Compound Tags” for the new row level ones? I think it is descriptive and still familiar.
Posted by Pierre Paul Landry
Nov 2, 2021 at 09:16 PM
Hi Maurice,
Unless you plan on providing a single grid-like UI, I would avoid names that have too much of a visual aspect.
i.e. Nodes, Rows, Columns have visuals that users come to expect
As to Tags, AFAIK they are always Yes / No properties and hence do not have any values
So I would stick to more generic names, such as: Items, Tags and Values (or Properties)
This is how it’s done in InfoQube IM
Pierre Paul Landry
IQ Designer
https://www.infoqube.biz/Home
Posted by Maurice Parker
Nov 2, 2021 at 11:57 PM
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I always like listening to designers.
Pierre Paul Landry wrote:
Hi Maurice,
>
>Unless you plan on providing a single grid-like UI, I would avoid names
>that have too much of a visual aspect.
>i.e. Nodes, Rows, Columns have visuals that users come to expect
You make a good point. If I want to make a tree view or mind-map view at some point, those terms will be confusing.
>As to Tags, AFAIK they are always Yes / No properties and hence do not
>have any values
That’s how I see it too, but Tags might still be the closest thing we have yet.
>So I would stick to more generic names, such as: Items, Tags and Values
>(or Properties)
I think I understand where you are coming from. I think that you can make things so general that users don’t have any frame of reference. I’m not huge on metaphor, but I do understand it is somewhat useful.
Tag as a metaphor makes some sense here. You can put tags (like price tags) on items to give them additional structured meaning. That could help the user grasp the concept faster than if it was called something that could mean anything.
>This is how it’s done in InfoQube IM
>
>Pierre Paul Landry
>IQ Designer
>https://www.infoqube.biz/Home
>