Skip to content

[DQT] UX/UI feedback + Proposed alterations #10430

@HenriRabalais

Description

@HenriRabalais

I am working on a query generator for the biobank, which familiarized me with the new DQT. Here is some of feedback and suggestions for the UX/UI

Describe the solution you'd like

Instructions

  • should be high visibility, but less dominant in page hierarchy, i.e. not at the top of the page → perhaps as a ¼-page-width column on the left-hand side.
  • Important terms or references should be bold/italics/coloured or differentiated in some way; i.e. Define Fields, Define Filters, View Data
  • Continue to define fields button should not be imbedded in the Instructions Panel. As a first time-user, this view can work. However, upon subsequent uses the button should not read 'Continue' but simply 'Define Filters'. Alternatively, the DQT should open directly on the Define Filters Page. The Instructions could remain in a left-hand ¼ column along with the Recent Queries

Recent Queries

  • Should default to 'collapsed'. In practice, the important queries will be renamed or pinned and known. If the user wants more details they can choose to expand the query. This will reduce a bit of visual clutter and allow more than 5 queries to be displayed per page.

Define Fields

  • Section could take up ½ width of screen in center, while instructions + save queries remain on left-hand ¼ and selected fields remain on right-hand ¼
  • Hierarchy of information and layout should be revisited for this section. The association between user input fields and their expected effect is unclear.
Image

Workflow

  • I think a horizontally displayed multi-step functions better for the DQT workflow
Image
  • The workflow in the previous version of the DQT was more intuitive
Image

View Data

  • The fields above the view data should maybe be nested in a cog icon in the top right corner of the table as they directly alter how the table presents the data. They likely do not require the full screen width.
Image

Additional context
These are simply observations and suggestions based on my limited experience with the DQTs workflow and functionality.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    ProposalPR or issue suggesting an improvement that can be accepted, rejected or altered

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions