Re: [Gramps-devel] Final tagging decisions

[Nick H. <nic...@ho...>]

Benny Malengier wrote:
>
>
> 2010/10/5 Nick Hall <nic...@ho... 
> <mailto:nic...@ho...>>
>
>     Hi,
>
>     At the moment in trunk, I have implemented tagging for people.  If
>     everyone is happy with this, I intend to complete the tagging
>     functionality.  There are two questions we need to answer:
>
>
>     1. Which primary objects should support tagging?
>
>      From a technical point of view, I could implement tagging for any of
>     the primary objects.  The GEPS makes some suggestions:
>
>     http://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_011:_Tagging#What_can_be_tagged
>
>     Clearly tagging people is the most useful application.  I can see that
>     tagging families may be useful, but I am not sure about any of the
>     other
>     primary objects.  We should not implement the functionality just
>     because
>     we can, only where it serves a useful purpose.  I think that it is
>     probably wrong to implement it on all primary objects.
>
>     What do you think?
>
>
> Add it also on families and notes.
>
> Families: Families are as much a core object as persons

I certainly agree we should add tag functionality to families.  I'll do 
that next.

>
> Notes: People write individual notes as snippets, instead of writing 
> different word documents that are added to source/person/...  It has 
> the advantage of easy search in the notes (eg on a family name), 
> having all your data in Gramps, making todo lists (so use in specific 
> reports, think of collecting a bunch of notes with the same tag in a 
> 'text' report, so you can export it to doc to start writing a full 
> nice text. For notes, tagging should replace marker and notetype 
> (which is what we used as _the_ tag of a note for simplicity).

As I said in my reply to Heinz, I see tags as more transient in nature, 
intended to help a user easily find a collection of objects.

The Gramps Note Type describes the content of a note and deserves to be 
a separate field.  The pre-defined list of options is helpful to the user.

I think that a "ToDo List" should be another Note Type, rather than a 
tag or a marker, because it describes the content of a note.

At the moment I can't think of a good use for tags on notes.

>  
>
>     2. Should we remove markers?
>
>     Tags provide much of the same functionality as markers.  In the person
>     views, the colour of the rows is now determined by tags rather
>     than the
>     markers.
>
>     If we remove markers, we should convert them into tags.
>
>     At present we have markers on People, Families and Notes.   I can't
>     really see a good use for tags on Notes - does anyone actually use
>     markers on Notes?
>
>     Again, what do you think?
>
>
> If investigation shows the functionality is duplicate and tags does it 
> better (as now we have more than one marker), then I would deprecate 
> markers.

I think that we should remove markers.  For people and families they 
will become tags and for notes the ToDo marker will become a Note Type.

> About notes, as said above, tags can replace notemarker _and_ notetype.
> The default type of a note is a type related to the object with which 
> it is originally connected (eg a note from an attribute by default 
> obtains the type 'attribute note', in the backreferences of the note 
> you see eg family, so you know you can look up the note in the 
> attribute of that family).

I have never liked the defaults for Note Type.  As you say, you can 
always use the References tab to find the objects, including their type, 
that the note is attached to.

I would change the default to "Unknown".  The user could then select a 
more appropriate type describing the content of the note.


> So that should convert to a default tag of the object with which it is 
> created (tag attribute in section above). Then user can add eg tag 
> 'citation', and 'transcript' if he so desires.
>
>
>     Once we have answered these questions I will finish the coding.
>
>
> This sounds so easy :-)
>
> Even if you now only do notes, families and persons, somebody in the 
> future wil really, really, really want it on sources to, and somebody 
> will implement that. Keep that in mind while designing  things.

Yes, technically, it is just as easy to add tags to any of the primary 
objects.

>
> I would share tags over all objects. It can be cluttered, but I don't 
> think the alternative of person tags, family tags, ... is a good 
> solution either. Yes?

Yes, I agree.


Nick.

> Eg, for notes, if we have a tag 'attribute', then this tag has little 
> use for a person, however, should somebody add source, then the tag 
> 'attribute' is relevant for sources.
>
> Benny
>
>     Regards,
>
>
>     Nick.
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
>     standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1,  ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
>     Spend less time writing and  rewriting code and more time creating
>     great
>     experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
>     http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gramps-devel mailing list
>     Gra...@li...
>     <mailto:Gra...@li...>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
>
>