-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Option to exclude some candidates in a cluster from being merged #105
Comments
From stefano.mazzocchi@gmail.com on July 01, 2010 07:55:20: |
From iainsproat on July 01, 2010 08:48:54: If the reconciliation engine doesn't give a high score to the cell value, e.g. 'Paris 1' is not given a high match as being the city of Paris, I'd have to go through each of the Paris cells and ensure it gets reconciled to the correct Paris topic. Not ideal. |
Hi @wetneb Issue: Individual candidates cannot be excluded from being part of a single cluster under the current UX Suggestion: When the user selects merge option for a particular cluster, all individual values in the cluster should get selected by default to be merged. The user can deselect an individual candidate to exclude it from being a part of the cluster So this how the new flow would look like- STEP 1: User selects merge option STEP 2: User deselects the individual candidate to be excluded from the cluster STEP 3: User executes the merge operation Link to Figma file: https://www.figma.com/file/IaIjW1z4YtAgE4Vr6LGcMR/Outreachy%2FOpenRefine%2F%23105?node-id=0%3A1&t=63ibwTqhEIlCNR6C-1 I'd really like to know your inputs on this suggestion. |
@lozanaross @wetneb I have recorded and posted some of my work on this issue. I would like to request that this issue be assigned to me. |
Hi @lozanaross @wetneb |
@Critic-A I like it! It feels very natural to me. One slight worry is that we need to dynamically change bullet points into checkboxes, which is perhaps not so elegant because the bullet points and the checkboxes might not take the exact same space, so it is likely that it will change the layout of the content slightly. I wonder if it would be an option to only have checkboxes? They could be disabled if the corresponding merge option has not been selected yet. Also, because the user first needs to click the Merge checkbox, for me it would seem a bit more natural to have it on the left-hand side of the cluster candidates (because I read left to right). I am not sure if that should be swapped for right-to-left languages (I do not think we do this sort of customization anywhere in OpenRefine, but maybe we should?) |
@wetneb Regarding having the merge checkbox on the left, I agree with your suggestion. Infact, I was actually thinking that we can change the layout a bit. The primary focus here is on the individual candidate and what they'll look like when they get merged. The cluster size and row count follows them in the importance hierarchy. So the layout could look something like (from left to right)
Would love to know your views. I'll post the wireframe iterations in a bit. |
Hi @wetneb As I mentioned in my previous comment, I tried changing the layout and introduced checkboxes instead of bullet points. All fields requiring click-based interaction from the user's end are placed towards the left end. Selecting the 'merge' checkbox Also, if the user unselects an individual candidate and then proceeds to unslect the merge option, the selection in the individual candidates remains intact. Eg- if I unselected Paris 1 and then unselected Merge for that cluster, the Paris 1 would remain unselected till any other further operation. Here are the two iterations. The difference lies in how the disabled state of the checkbox looks like if the merge option is not selected yet. I feel if the checkboxes are already checked even in the default state, it is catching the user's eye and creating a monotony which isn't necessary. |
Thanks a lot! It looks good to me. I agree with your assessment on the default state of checkboxes. |
Generally this looks good to me but I have a couple of questions:
If the answer to these is No then I wonder if we can make it clearer that the selections are about whether the item is included in the Merge, rather than whether it is included in the Cluster? |
@ostephens @lozanaross @wetneb Similarly, if the user unselects some values in the cluster and then uses the "Browse this cluster" option, the unchecked values should not be included. |
Thanks @Critic-A, I like the design proposal above, it is logical and looks fitting. I would also recommend the behaviour you describe below as this is what I would also expect as a user.
@wetneb @ostephens do you foresee any problems with implementing this type of dynamic changing of values to be included in the cluster? |
It sounds intuitively doable. |
From a behaviour perspective the proposal makes sense to me From a practical perspective I think it should be possible although I'm slightly concerned that it could have a performance impact (I'm not sure if you'd have to recalculate all the clusters, or if you could just update the single cluster that has been changed by the selection) |
Hi @ostephens @wetneb @lozanaross |
Yes I think this is a consensual and actionable design proposal, thank you very much! |
Could you assign this to me ? @wetneb |
Original author: iainsproat (June 30, 2010 19:18:19)
In the cell cluster & merge dialog, it should be possible to exclude individual candidates from being part of a single cluster.
An example I came across was the following cluster:
"Paris 1, Paris 2, Paris 3, Piraeus, Paris 4....".
If I merge this then Piraeus is erroneously changed to Paris.
I'd like an option to exclude Piraeus from being merged.
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/google-refine/issues/detail?id=105
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: