-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Feedbacks on the peptide search page #35
Comments
@jadianes @noedelta again, this is a 1000x improvement compared to the original page! Thanks!!! some comments:
|
@jgriss @ruiwanguk @noedelta I agree with most of the feedback. About the colours, I removed them cause before they represented cluster quality. Since now we are showing just high quality clusters they don't make sense anymore. However I'm keen on using colour to code any other information. Sorting and filtering controls are definitively needed. I hope somebody will take care of it at some point so they are ready for the millestone. Same with a table view if you really want it. About this, I'm not really sure is the best way to present search results. Tables are good for comparing numbers and doing calculations. They can also be sorted, true, but also can be lists. Even the grid that we have now can use relative sorting, although I agree that if we really see our search users doing strict sorting of results (something that most search engines don't have btw) something like a list is needed. But we need to think about the use case we are covering here:
In any case having different representations for the search results is a plus. I think that this could be a strong point for our site. But my opinion is that we should start showing a list of results (if we are not happy with the grid) and give the user the option of checking them also as a table or chart if she or he is interested in comparing results or knowing the context of the search results (e.g. a bubble chart). But for finding the right search results I don't think a table is the best options for the constraints I already mentioned! |
@jadianes Thank you for the nice suggestions. Since it is relatively easy to experiment with the list layout , it offers the potential for much better usability, and we had experience with this on designing PRIDE Archive web, I would vote for trying out the list layout. |
@jgriss @ruiwanguk @noedelta I've just committed some changes to the search results page. Once @noedelta have them deployed, we can continue the discussion |
@ruiwanguk @jgriss @jadianes re-deployment done http://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/pride/cluster/#/list?q=&page=1&size=10 |
@ruiwanguk @jgriss @noedelta I've committed new updates. A list of what has been incorporated so far:
I like @jgriss suggestion about incorporating precursor values into the title by the sequence. Should we try this and see how it looks like? @noedelta @ruiwanguk right now the WS gives back zeros for most of the counts but |
ok, I am happy to announce that the numbers are back 🔢 |
@jadianes @ruiwanguk @noedelta Thanks a lot for the work Jose! Personally, for me it's easier to quickly get the information I'm looking for with the new table view. Probably, it's just because I'm used to looking at tables. At the same time, the core information I'm looking for (cluster size, precursor m/z, charge state, modifications) are easier to compare that way since I just have to keep looking at the one column. In the other view I had to look downward and to the side to compare these numbers. Personally, I believe that most users will look for clusters of interest in the same way (largest clusters with a given precursor m/z / charge state and a defined set of modifications). One additional comment:
|
The latest committed code should include additional details on each result summary - once we redeploy we can check if the are OK. |
@jadianes @noedelta @ruiwanguk I am not sure whether the currently deployed version contains all of Jose's changes. So ignore if that has not been updated yet:
|
@noedelta @ruiwanguk @jgriss I'm going to add it back together with going back to the Frontier CSS only. Should I add the precursor/charge section again to the cluster summary page? It would be great if we can deploy this today :) |
I've added a partial fix - couldn't make it work in the cluster summary page for some reason... My changes are committed |
Hi I added a other small fix for having this working in the primary peptide (remove a pair of brackets the expression looks like work) however now it is broken in the unique peptides table :( It is deploy, Noe |
Fixed now. |
@jadianes @noedelta Very nice work to get the search working again! Below are some additional comments:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: