* [Wish List 641] Templates: Input form labels

[Gary_G]

Currently Family Historian has no way to divide user-created template into logical sections.

This means one needs to remember the purpose of each set of template fields, which are currently displayed as a single bulleted list.

This can lead to entering data into an incorrect field and the template therefore not providing the intended output, whether that is inconsistent or incorrect.

It would be an improvement if the template design form permitted the use of a field-type called "label".

The noted field type would have a field-label, but no meta-field tag or associated data. When present in a template, it would cause its associated field-label to be shown in underlined text that is offset to the left, such that it begins in the same column as the bullets of the normal template field-labels.

[tatewise]

Would Wish List Ref 597 Metafield Description Tooltip for Source Templates achieve the same objective of making the purpose of each field much clearer but by a different method?

[Gary_G]

Mike;
The wishlist item you noted would not do the job.

Tooltips explain the purpose of an item, but not the purpose of a group of items. In addition they require one hover over each item to determine its use and then infer the group to which it belongs. Labels make the purpose of a group of fields visually apparent without any further action on the part of the user.

[Mark1834]

My instinct is that would add unnecessary complexity to template design and UI. We can already specify field name, data type, sequence, and a short prompt, and adding to that (and a longer pop-up description as per cited Wish List item) wouldn’t be a priority for me.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'm struggling to see what this adds to a well crafted prompt that could include that Label. Perhaps Gary_G can cite an example of a template that needs it?

[Gary_G]

Unfortunately; I'm finding that field groupings are important in some citations. The existing prompts, which disappear the moment one starts to type, and the field descriptions, which don't even show up when the template is "live", are quite useless to me. I would think that the tooltips would be better than the existing prompts, but would definitely not fulfill the purpose of grouping the fields per my "Labels" wishlist item.

As for complexity; at the moment, we can add a dummy fields to a table, but they must carry a useless and possibly confusing fields with them. Visually formatting the label and removing the active field would also improve the clarity of the UI.

[Gary_G]

Helen;

I think the you are missing the point of improving the visibility of groups of fields. A "well-crafted prompt" cannot fulfill the same purpose unless each and every field-name contains the prefix that I would propose be able to be added as a label for the group of fields. Adding such a prefix makes filenames excessively long as well. At the moment, we only have two lines to construct the footnotes etc. and adding longer labels would make a bad problem even worse.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen;

I think the you are missing the point of improving the visibility of groups of fields. "well-crafted prompt" cannot fulfill the same purpose unless each and every field-name contains the prefix that I would propose be able to be added as a label for the group of fields. Adding such a prefix makes filenames excessively long as well. At the moment, we only have two lines to construct the footnotes etc. and adding longer labels would make a bad problem even worse.

Gary, I asked for an example because I wondered if I might be missing the point without one. I'm guessing (but only guessing) that you might want for example to group Collection and URL in a Strathclyde-based approach, but that seems too simple a grouping to be necessary when you could name them Collection and Collection URL, or make the prompts 'Collection details as provided by the online warehouse' (I always hesitate to think of them as repositories) and 'URL or URI for the Collection named above'.

[Gary_G]

Gary, I asked for an example because I wondered if I might be missing the point without one. I'm guessing (but only guessing) that you might want for example to group Collection and URL in a Strathclyde-based approach, but that seems too simple a going to be necessary when you could name them Collection and Collection URL, or make the prompts 'Collection details as provided by the online warehouse' (I always hesitate to think of them as repositories) and 'URL or URI for the Collection named above'.

Helen;
It's a bit difficult to provide an example utilizing a feature that doesn't yet exist. Besides; every time I post a specific example (and without fail), discussion transitions to dissecting the example and missing the whole point of why it was submitted.

As in one of my posts; I noted that one can already include a dummy field to provide a visual grouping of fields. All this request asks is to add a bit of formatting and remove the active field thereby improving the visible break. Hypothetically; a person using the EE-style might do that to separate the fields pertaining to the image from those pertaining to the "repository" and also from those pertaining to the source-of-source and/or notes. Even if one does not use the EE-Style, one may have templates that have a sufficient number of fields that separating them would be useful.

[Gary_G]

Helen;
As an aside; I, too, find the terminology that has been used for citations to be somewhat ad hoc and therefore confusing. However; you are correct in your assumption that citations that are longer and more complex are those that would benefit most from labelled sections. In those cases, adding qualifiers to label-names is impractical.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'd be opposed to adding qualifiers to field names(as a plugin author who wishes people would use the same names for the same fields!).

And yes, I understand why you're reluctant to post a specific example, but it does make it hard for people to see the utility of what you're proposing.

[Gary_G]

Helen;

Just so we are clear. I am not suggesting anything to with adding "qualifiers" to field-names. That was what I understood the suggestion of a "well-crafted prompt" to be. What I am suggesting is a very minor change from what one can already , to some extent, do.

I won't show a full image of my template for the previously explained reasons, but here is a section of it and the final citation it generates. What is shown is how one is currently forced to label sections. It is from one of my experiments into how I could possibly handle most citations with just a few templates.

Template snippet.pdf

(32.47 KiB) Downloaded 28 times

Citation.pdf

(27.29 KiB) Downloaded 18 times

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen;

Just so we are clear. I am not suggesting anything to with adding "qualifiers" to field-names.

I didn't think you were, but expected it to be suggested as a workaround.

[Gary_G]

Helen;

No problem. I am hoping that people realize that this is actually a very easy enhancement with no potential impact on programming of plug-ins. It is seeking to make user-templates a bit more user-friendly by permitting visual separation of functional sections in a more "professional-looking" way than what can currently be done. I hope people commenting on any wish list items realize that none of us use all the available features...until we find we actually need them. I think, also, for the small effort required to implement it, CP could find it to be a good selling feature.

[AdrianBruce]

So basically, so far as I can see now, after looking at Template snippet1.pdf in particular, we're just looking at a convenient, permanent, label, for a group of fields appearing on a Templated Source Record. Seems eminently sensible to me - especially if you're someone like me who likes a long series of fields but would appreciate a permanent hint about what a particular group is for, even after the underlying items have been completed.

[Gary_G]

Absolutely correct, Adrian.

[Mark1834]

Thanks Gary, a useful illustration. I think I've moved from sceptic to agnostic , as it's not something I feel I would use or need, but I can see a potential place for it for those who prefer tightly defined templates and citations without disrupting things for the rest of us.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I can see that some people with very complex templates might benefit from this.

[NickWalker]

Yes I can see this would be very useful to those who use templated sources with a lot of fields.

[Gary_G]

As a result of the questions/comments, I propose that the following be amended text be added to the formal list.
If there are no objections, I would ask that it be added to the formal wishlist.
----

Currently Family Historian has no practical way to divide user-created template into logical sections to improve readability/meaning. [A user can add "dummy" fields, but this approach has the drawback of adding active fields that add to clutter and visual confusion for the user.]

This means one needs to remember the purpose of each set of template fields, which are currently displayed as a single bulleted list.

This can lead to entering data into an incorrect field and the template therefore not providing the intended output, whether that is inconsistent or incorrect.

It would be an improvement if the template design form permitted the use of a field-type called "label".

The noted field type would have a field-label, but no meta-field tag or associated data. When present in a template, it would cause its associated field-label to be shown in underlined text that is offset to the left, such that it begins in the same column as the bullets of the normal template field-labels.

It should be noted that, due to the noted manner of providing this feature, the implementation of "template labels" should have no effect on the design and operation of current or future plug-ins.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I don't believe we should be specifying formatting, as CP will have their own 'design guide'. Perhaps something like

"When present in a template, the 'label' should be visually distinct from the fields which is associated with."

[Gary_G]

I'm OK with that, Helen.
My suggestion was only something that seemed to align with the way the templates currently look.

[Gary_G]

Could you perhaps use?

"When present in a template, the 'label' should be visually distinct from the fields with which it is associated."

Just grammar...

[Vyger]

Wish List item 641 has been created. Please vote for it to let Calico Pie know if you wish to see this feature introduced.

Remember to filter and browse existing Wish List items and add your support where you feel it is warranted.