| cjming | |
| Jul 3 2024, 10:28 PM |
| F56208041: Screenshot 2024-07-03 at 4.26.27 PM.png | |
| Jul 3 2024, 10:28 PM |
On all MPIC forms, successful form submit should redirect back to the Catalog view with a success message box at the top per design mocks:
Addressing @Sfaci's comment here.
As mentioned by Santiago, the message copy The instrument INSTRUMENT_NAME has been successfully launched. Monitor in Grafana doesn't apply to all submit scenarios: 1. Launching a new instrument, 2. Launching an instrument from a template, 3. Modifying an existing instrument. In case that differentiating between scenarios is reasonable/feasible, then we could display a specific message for scenarios 1 & 2, and a different message for the third scenario:
Let's start with the latter, Scenario 3. Modify an existing instrument: In this case, a message that reads The instrument INSTRUMENT_NAME has been successfully updated. Monitor in Grafana would sound more accurate. Thoughts, opinions and corrections really welcome!
Scenarios 1 & 2. Launching a new instrument from scratch/from a template: The original message would work here. Nevertheless, I'd like to start evaluating the option of getting away from the use of the verb “launch” since I agree it can feel somewhat inaccurate. I'd like to get some feedback 🙏🏻 but the following is not blocking for this ticket.
By all definitions, “to launch” appears to always imply “putting something in motion”, which requires said something to be active, or “on”. I interpret that MPIC instruments have 3 states: “Off” (default), “On but waiting” (for the start date to be met), and “On and active” (once the start date has been met).
One could say that only if the latter state (“On and active”) were the default, then “launch” would be an accurate way to express the users' action on submit. Nevertheless, given the current default (“Off”), a verb in the line of “Create”, "Configure" or “Set up” might sound more versatile instead (e.g., "Create new instrument", " The instrument INSTRUMENT_NAME has been successfully configured".). Any of these options would also work if instruments were set to “On” by default, as mentioned in this previous comment. Any thoughts on this? Anyone wanting to shine a light on the original decision to use "launch", or on whether setting instruments "On" by default would make more sense? Thank you!
I agree with you @Sarai-WMF regarding the Scenario 3. The new message is more appropriate.
Regarding the other scenarios, I also agree and I think the discussion should be about if the default status should be On or Off and if we should launch the instrument after being created. I think the default status is Off because one of us (maybe me) decided to develop it that way because I think we never discussed seriously which one should be the default status for a recently registered instrument. I never though about that third status ("On" but still inactive). It's a good point. I don't have a solid opinion about it. Sometimes I consider a bit dangerous to launch directly the instrument after registering. Is that something that the use could expect? Shouldn't be better to register it and, later, enable it? We are not asking for any confirmation about registering/launching or even editing anything. Shouldn't we do that?
I guess this is directly related to the other question (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T371928#10058996) we put in the other ticket some days ago about the default text we use for the form button. We say always "Launch instrument". Depending on what we decide here I guess we should modify that text as well.
@VirginiaPoundstone is there something already discussed/decided about all this?
Thank you for providing more content, @Sfaci! That's really helpful.
My initial inkling after reading your original comment about the new instruments' status was to think that setting them to "on" by default could actually be less error-prone 🤔 In their current workflow, could users forget to enable an instrument on time and thus put data collection at risk? Or would they get any sort of error while setting up their experiment in case the instrument is disabled?
It might also be a good idea to give users direct control over the default status of their new instruments. We could include a "Status" toggle switch in the form page, so they can consciously select the status of the instrument they are creating while working on it.
The option would also be useful in case users are modifying an existing inactive instrument: they won't have to go back to the Instrument catalog to turn it on after applying the necessary changes.
In any case, this will be an interesting aspect to evaluate with the help from experiment owners in the upcoming usability tests!
My initial inkling after reading your original comment about the new instruments' status was to think that setting them to "on" by default could actually be less error-prone 🤔 In their current workflow, could users forget to enable an instrument on time and thus put data collection at risk? Or would they get any sort of error while setting up their experiment in case the instrument is disabled?
@Sarai-WMF Good point of view. I didn't realize that. Definitely I think you are right.
Anyway I will be ok with anything we decide here. I think that, technically, (almost) everything is doable but I guess usability is the thing we should follow because, in the end, users are the ones who are going to use this tool and I'm not that user and I don't have any experience doing something similar. So, I'm ok with what anything decided regarding all this.