[ckan-discuss] CKAN UI improvements #1 - Package Page

[Richard Cyganiak]

Nice. I like where this is going!

On 1 Dec 2010, at 13:45, Richard Pope wrote:
> Comments/discussion - I've changed the name to 'Questions and
> comments' and added the number of items to the button.

Works for me.

> Downloads / resources - I've gone with 'Downloads and resources' as
> the title, so as to accomodate  RDF etc, and added an explanation
> under the table.

I like the title, and the explanation helps. The table itself still  
doesn't make much sense -- it still labels everything as “Download”  
regardless of whether it's downloadable, and the URL column is still  
mislabelled (it doesn't contain URLs).

> API / datapkg - I've added a visually obviously separate section for
> code related stuff and included some examples for using datapkg.

Looks much too big and heavy to me. Either put it on a separate tab  
(“API”), or collapse it by default, or make the block much smaller. I  
don't see the point in printing the full JSON and RDF URLs -- links  
would be sufficient.

I'm glad that groups are back. I'm not a fan of renaming the feature  
to “Collections”, but I'm ok with it as long as that change is also  
made in the URL scheme and in the API.

I still want the homepage URL back in a prominent position. “View more  
information at http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/...” in a small font misses  
the point. Look, some of us use CKAN *as a directory of links*,  
essentially a library of bookmarks. This URL is one of the most  
important pieces of information on the page, perhaps second only to  
the title.

Best,
Richard



>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Richard Cyganiak  
> <richard at cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Great to see work on the UI of CKAN happening!
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2010, at 13:44, Richard Pope wrote:
>>>
>>> First up here are a few suggestions and a mockup for the package  
>>> page:
>>>
>>> http://ckan.org/wiki/UIRedesignPackage
>>
>> Nice!
>>
>> Some comments:
>>
>>> Comments - Suggest move to a separate tab and rename discussion as  
>>> per
>>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> Not sure about this. On Wikipedia, the discussion page is not for
>> discussions about the topic of the article but about discussing the  
>> article
>> itself. On CKAN, my impression is that comments about either of  
>> those are
>> encouraged. Or not? And if the comments can contain useful  
>> information about
>> the dataset (“it's full of errors and not actively maintained,  
>> don't waste
>> your time with this”), then they shouldn't be hidden on a separate  
>> page.
>>
>> So I guess some clarity about the purpose of the comments field is  
>> needed
>> first.
>>
>>> Getting the data - 'resources' is unclear term, just call it  
>>> 'downloads?'
>>
>> That would be a step in the wrong direction IMO. It's not just  
>> downloads but
>> all sort of other things too -- API endpoints, documentation,  
>> example links.
>> See [1] for a proposal that deals with this in a better way IMO --  
>> by moving
>> the description to the first column, it becomes much clearer what the
>> resource is (download or something else).
>>
>>> Groups - Confusing having groups and tags on this page, suggest  
>>> remove
>>> groups for now focus on tags as primary method for organising /  
>>> grouping.
>>
>> Please don't do that. Groups don't have to be visually prominent,  
>> but you
>> would make my job as the manager of a CKAN group MUCH harder by  
>> removing
>> this information completely from the package page. I agree that  
>> tags are
>> certainly much more important for the average user, and should be  
>> displayed
>> more prominently.
>>
>>> Title - Name of package gets lot in the buttons (edit etc) and the  
>>> package
>>> slug id
>>
>> The package ID shouldn't be as prominent as it currently is, but  
>> should
>> still be shown somewhere to enable tools like datapkg where one  
>> needs to
>> know the package ID.
>>
>>> API / package slug - Create new API section the explains the slug  
>>> id and
>>> how to access via datapkg etc
>>
>> Yes good idea. Don't call it “package slug” though!
>>
>> Please keep the package URL (homepage) more prominent. I'd vote for  
>> keeping
>> it where it is now, under the big title. I often use CKAN as a sort  
>> of
>> directory for going to the web pages of certain packages.
>>
>> +1 to the other points.
>>
>> Some other points that I would like to see addressed in a redesign  
>> of the
>> package page UI:
>> http://ckan.org/ticket/818
>> http://ckan.org/ticket/816
>> http://ckan.org/ticket/814
>>
>> Again, thanks for working on this! I'm very much looking forward to  
>> seeing
>> some of these improvements go live on the site soon.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> [1] http://ckan.org/ticket/817
>
>
>
> -- 
> /*
> richard at memespring.co.uk
> memespring.co.uk
> ++44 7976730458
> memespring (flickr/skype/etc)
> memspr (aim)
> */
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-discuss mailing list
> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss