Favorites on Toolbar

[bkonia]

It would be highly convenient to allow the user to drag Favorites onto Toolbar.

** This suggestion was originally submitted via email and Kevin from Kinook responded favorably to it.

[bkonia]

As a follow-up to my original suggestion, I would now like to suggest that you create a "Favorites Pane". This would work the same way that "Favorite Folders" works in Outlook. It would essentially be a second copy of the Data Explorer, but it would only contain Favorites and their children. I envision this pane living in between the Search Pane and the Data Explorer pane.

Much of the data that users would typically store in UR is infrequently accessed. However, data that is used daily, such as Task lists, etc... should be readily available, without having to scroll through the entire hierarchy in the Data Explorer. Thus, I would like to be able to drag my Tasks folder into a Favorites pane and work with that folder and its children, directly from the Favorites pane.

[kinook]

I do this by creating a Favorites item in the Data Explorer tree as the first child of My Data, adding that item as a favorite (shortcut Alt+Shift+F), then multi-linking all my commonly used items underneath.

[bkonia]

Originally posted by kinook
I do this by creating a Favorites item in the Data Explorer tree as the first child of My Data, adding that item as a favorite (shortcut Alt+Shift+F), then multi-linking all my commonly used items underneath.

Sure, you could do that, but it's a workaround and not as convenient as having a separate Favorites pane. But after thinking about this some more, I have an even better idea...

Rather than having just a single Favorites pane, how about making it possible for the user to create additional "Data Explorer" panes and to customize the contents of each pane by dragging branches from the main Data Explorer into the custom Data Explorer panes. Each of these panes would be a custom "View" of the database.

For example, I could create a Data Explorer pane just for Tasks and I would drag a copy of my Tasks folder into that pane. Then I might create a pane just for Imported Items and drag a copy of my Imported Items object into that pane.

The idea would be to create dedicated panes for the branches that you use most frequently. That way, instead of having to deal with the clutter of the entire Data Explorer hierarchy, you would have instant access to those items that you are using frequently. I find that I'm constantly opening and closing branches in my Data Explorer pane as I move around the tree to perform different tasks. This opening and closing of branches wastes a lot of time, but it gets too cluttered if you leave too many branches open.

This approach would also allow you to multitask more efficiently. If you have many objects in the tree, it becomes impossible, with just a single Data Explorer window, to view multiple sections of the tree simultaneously. Even if you leave the branches expanded, you will still have to scroll up and down to view the different sections. It would be much more efficient in terms of workflow to be able to view different sections simultaneously, each in its own pane.

Yes, I know you can SORT of do this using the logical linking method you described, but it would be SO much cleaner to have a dedicated Tasks pane, a dedicated Contacts pane, etc, etc, etc... With the logical linking workaround, if you go into the tree to retrieve some other type of data, then all your logical links at the top of the tree would scroll off the screen. Now you're back to the same problem where you have to scroll back and forth constantly. I would like to be able to move around in the main Data Explorer while at the same time leaving alternate views open in separate panes, like how I described above. That way, you would ALWAYS have your contact list displayed in the Contacts pane. Your tasks list would ALWAYS be present in the tasks pane, etc...

[Leoram]

Thanks Brad for your fluent and brilliant exposition:

I second your opinion.

I think we all benefit from your posts, which are normally well thought. I perused very carefully into your primary idea as well as on the expanded one. I hope the developers of UR take this very seriously as a great contribution. I'm sure it (if implemented) would favorably impact many potential and non potential UR users, and would make UR almost unbeatable among top PIMs, content and KMs on the market.

Leoram

[PureMoxie]

Hmm, interesting idea, but what size is your screen, 50"? ;-)

There are already 7 panes. True, they don't all have to be showing at once, but if they are, there just doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put additional panes.

I think the idea of a filtered, hoisted, or some other dynamic version of the data explorer pane might make more sense. The idea of showing a subset of the entire tree based on some dynamic criteria might be part of what you're after.

I do like the general idea you're talking about, I'm just not sure exactly how it would play out in the interface... Perhaps when the tabbed item browser comes about there could also be a tabbed data explorer pane?

But linking freely may be the best approach, anyway - entire views (e.g., all contacts, all tasks) can easily be created as a search item and then placed at multiple locations in the tree. And with favorites' shortcut keys, any of these views are always a keystroke away.

[bkonia]

Originally posted by PureMoxie
Hmm, interesting idea, but what size is your screen, 50"? ;-)

I have a 17" notebook with 1680 X 1050 resolution. Therefore, I have more than enough screen real estate to accomodate more panes. While not everyone has that much resolution, most notebooks being sold today have at least 1440 X 900 resolution. Obviously, if your display is 800 X 600, this feature will not be of much use to you, but I think UR should be designed so that users who have the necessary resolution, can take advantage of it.

There are already 7 panes. True, they don't all have to be showing at once, but if they are, there just doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put additional panes.

Since the new panes would be "Data Explorer" panes, they could probably use some of the space that's now being used by the main Data Explorer pane. You could shrink your main Data Explorer since it would no longer be necessary to use it for everything. Another possibility would be your idea for adding tabs to the Data Explorer, which would allow the user to rapidly switch to different views, while leaving the other views intact.

I think the above point gets to the crux of the issue. It's not so much that you need everything displayed on the screen at once. It's more that you need a way to jump around to different sections of the tree without losing your place. You can SORT OF do this with Favorites, but with Favorites, you still have the clutter of the entire tree displayed on your screen. For example, if you want to review your task list, you don't want to be distracted by all the other stuff in the tree...you just want to see your task list. A lot of times, I find myself staring at the tree not even knowing what I'm looking at, because there are so many objects nested through so many levels. If you turn your attention away for a minute, when you come back to your computer, you have to go through a thought process to figure out what you were working on.

I think the idea of a filtered, hoisted, or some other dynamic version of the data explorer pane might make more sense. The idea of showing a subset of the entire tree based on some dynamic criteria might be part of what you're after.

I do like the general idea you're talking about, I'm just not sure exactly how it would play out in the interface... Perhaps when the tabbed item browser comes about there could also be a tabbed data explorer pane?

Yes, your idea for a tabbed Data Explorer makes a lot of sense to me. Since I have the screen resolution, I think I would still want the OPTION to add additional Data Explorer panes, but adding tabs to the main Data Explorer pane would be a HUGE improvement.

But linking freely may be the best approach, anyway - entire views (e.g., all contacts, all tasks) can easily be created as a search item and then placed at multiple locations in the tree. And with favorites' shortcut keys, any of these views are always a keystroke away.

I strongly disagree with the above statement. Linking freely is ONE approach, but it is definitely not the best approach for every situation. Links make sense when an object is logically related to more than one parent object. Rather than forcing the user to choose one place to file an object, links allow him to file it in multiple locations. However, adding links just for the sake of speeding navigation within the tree seems like a poor workaround, when compared with the solutions discussed above.

[srdiamond]

Originally posted by bkonia


I strongly disagree with the above statement. Linking freely is ONE approach, but it is definitely not the best approach for every situation. Links make sense when an object is logically related to more than one parent object. Rather than forcing the user to choose one place to file an object, links allow him to file it in multiple locations. However, adding links just for the sake of speeding navigation within the tree seems like a poor workaround, when compared with the solutions discussed above.

Isn't the motive for linking _always_ to speed navigation?

[bkonia]

Originally posted by srdiamond
Isn't the motive for linking _always_ to speed navigation?

Well, I don't really see it that way. In my mind, the purpose of links is to allow for a more flexible organizational schema. If an object could logically be filed in more than one location in the tree, links allow to do that, rather than forcing you to choose a single location.

Does that speed navigation? I guess in one sense it does, because it will probably take less time to find it if it can be found in multiple locations. However, in this case, the speed is really a side-benefit of the primary benefit, which is a more organized structure.

This is different from the context that PureMoxie was referencing in his posting. He was suggesting that you create search items and place them in various locations throughout the tree. The goal in that scenario is not to improve the organizational schema, but just to have shortcuts available at your fingertips. This is analagous to the way people place Windows shortcuts on their desktop, in the Quick Launch tray, etc... Placing shortcuts in these locations does not improve the organization of your Windows file system, it just makes it more convenient and faster to access your frequently used programs.