You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Whilst it was specifically requested during the design phase, the behaviour whereby we apply a taxon filter to a much coarser ecological community than the visible one on the map is very confusing. For example, we select "Pond" which is highlighted on the map, but we then get the taxa filtered to the entire "Freshwater" community.
This is really not what a user will expect, but I believe the issue is that our observation records don't have sufficiently accurate georeferencing to guarantee that they are assigned to the correct community, especially if it is a geographically small one like "Pond". We should rethink how this interaction works, perhaps by highlighting geographical features separately at the different granularities.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Not sure what you mean here @amb26: "perhaps by highlighting geographical features separately at the different granularities."
Additionally confusing is that the panel subheading and image match the granular selection (e.g. Pond), but all other panel content (Cultural Values, Ecological Values) match the Community (e.g. Freshwater)
only allow selection of the Communities on the map (but keep the sub-communities in the legend)
OR
Make it clear that the “sub-community” (what can we call this?) e.g. Pond, is what is being shown in the photo - possibly put the sub-community header under the photo and above/before the Community header
In this way the Community (Freshwater) header will also be more clearly connected to the Cultural/Ecological Values text content (as it comes immediately after/below)
Highlight the high-level Community on the map legend (in addition to the sub-community). Similar yellow highlighting but we need a visual indicator other than just colour here too, and 2 checkmarks might be confusing. Maybe some kind of connector line between the two.
Add a Community header to the Biodiversity panel (for the lists as well as web) so that it’s clear what is being shown there
Whilst it was specifically requested during the design phase, the behaviour whereby we apply a taxon filter to a much coarser ecological community than the visible one on the map is very confusing. For example, we select "Pond" which is highlighted on the map, but we then get the taxa filtered to the entire "Freshwater" community.
This is really not what a user will expect, but I believe the issue is that our observation records don't have sufficiently accurate georeferencing to guarantee that they are assigned to the correct community, especially if it is a geographically small one like "Pond". We should rethink how this interaction works, perhaps by highlighting geographical features separately at the different granularities.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: