Hi, I replied here in some details Concerns about feedback and feature request tracking - #2 by mdubakov
Now that we have Voting in place, it becomes more important to merge similar/same requests together so people can properly distribute their votes (limit of 10 per person!). So I think this thread here should be merged with this earlier one:
Hi again, sorry for the barrage today!
This time I’d like to suggest some abilities around limiting views of fields in entity views. Here is what is on my mind:
A cornerstone feature of Fibery that has attracted me is the deep linking and visibility between entities across the Fibery app. However, my use calls for free linking between any entity in any app, to another entity. Right now you have to specify which entity type you want to link to another. I know @mdubakov you’ve mentioned that the ability to choose an entity within an app is in the works, but this is also limiting.
So in order to accommodate my need, I am having to set up links to certain types of entities I’d like to be visible to any other, within those “destination” types. So in my case for example, I have an “idea” entity that I want to relate to practically all other entity types in all Fiber apps. I am going to create a relationship to “idea” in each of those types. This is not only a lot of work, but also as I build this out, I have some types with relations with 8 -9 other entity types, as I may need to link those at some point.
This has led to some clutter in those entity views, and my team and provided me some feedback that the views are getting busy and hard to read.
So one solution I thought about was if it were somehow possible to minimize, or mask, non-used fields, particular those with relations, if there is no relation present. One idea would be to minimize those so that just the name of the relation is showing. Fully masking those fields would basically block the user from adding the related entity, but if they were minimized, and could be easily “opened’ back up so an related entity can be added, then I think you’d gain a much superior view of the task details, but also maintain full ability to do relationships as needed.
Thanks guys for listening!
@B_Sp It would be great to see a screenshot of entity view and a screenshot with the whole domain. It will help us to get the problem better and maybe even advice something
@mdubakov, ok, since you asked:
To preface re: my domain, I am in big experimentation mode, so this is not my intended set up. I will say that I do intend in fact 20 - 25 apps to represent the entire needs of my team/organization (we develop websites and have an SaaS product), so things that aren’t here yet include:
- Feature tracking/feedback from users
- Content planning
- OKR’s, Goals
- and others
(and I hold out high hopes that Fibery will build to the promise of Burnout, which would appear to incorporate much of this stuff in a true “Single Source of Truth” solution I am really hoping you guys can pull off!)
So here’s my domain:
Now, what I’m trying to do is have the ability to talk about just about anything in the domain in a meeting. Do things like create interviews for HR candidates, note a new idea for a new partnership, flat up a bug, take notes on a new section of a website we’ve thought about, or put on the agenda for the third time this week to make a decision about which laptop provider we’re going to use.
I am using a “meeting” type to represent the actual meeting. I hope later to integrate with a calendar solution, and track time for each team member present when you guys have those capabilities. In the past we used Confluence for team meetings, and we’d have a table in the Confluence doc for each topic item. But once the meeting was over, nobody would read the notes, and things that didn’t get solved would get stuck in that particular Confluence doc, disappearing into a blackhole. I realized that if my meetings consisted of topics that were actual entities, you could have a chance to not lose site of these if they were not covered in a meeting. And by attaching, in the case of Fibery, various reference items that would be types to these “Agenda Items,” you’d have a really good system with some good benefits:
- ability to quickly build notes in a meeting by quick adding entities to the Agenda items;
- the “Agenda Items” live on their own, and by linking each to the entities, you can always see decisions about entities right in the relations area
- the meeting note itself has great context as you can see the Agenda Items as live entities, with status, so if you decide in meeting that an Agenda Item is “for future consideration,” in another part of Fibery you can have those topics assimilated in a board for easy reference. In Confluence as I say they will disappear as random sentences across many docs.
So ideally I’d like to be able to link anything from my domain above to the “Agenda item” I am describing. I have a Type called “Agenda Item” that represents these in Fibery. But since I can’t link to any entity in Fibery, but rather the relation has to be to a certain type for now (eager to see “Polymorphic” when released!), I have to create relations for all the types I’d potentially want to discuss in a meeting. So this “Agenda Item” type looks like this for now:
And I will probably add even more relations.
In a lot of cases most of these fields will be empty. The main reason I have so many relations in the first place is to have the flexibility to relate, if needed, to anything else in Fibery. So with Polymorphic relations allowing me to reduce to just App relations, and not each Type in an App, or even the ability to relate to any entity across Fibery, which I think would be great if you guys release that capability, I wouldn’t need to have all these relations.
Hope this is useful guys, cheers!
Hey guys, sorry to reply to myself, but would be grateful for some insight here. If it’s easier feel free to Email me. This issue is very closely related to my other request of Reciprocal reference when using "/" commands in entities. Would be grateful if you could respond to that, too, as I assume it’s on your radar, and when you implement that is really key to my continued hesitation - although getting closer all the time! - to bringing my team over to Fiber.
The reciprocal linking is also missing in both Coda and Notion, would be terrific if you could beat them to the punch with this. And just to repeat again (sorry!) why this is so key to me, your excellent ability to convert stuff in a rich text into an entity is missing a “2nd half” until the linked entity gets an auto-reference back to the entity where it’s referenced in the text field. Basically exactly the way Confluence and Jira work together for those familiar with those two tools.
Thanks guys and eager to see you get back to moving things forward this year! Been missing the updates!
This one also could maybe be merged with another, to better collect votes:
For example, I do not need to view some fields in the entity card (mostly it’s calculated fields), because there are used only in the list or in reports.
I agree that this is something that would be useful and I assume not super complicated. I end up with a lot of calculated fields to use for filtering within views, which are more complicated than the filtering supports. These calculated fields aren’t really ever needed to be shown and end up being a bit overwhelming for new users. There have been a couple other threads with similar topics to reference and “heart” as well.
I wholeheartedly agree. I would love to see this feature request implemented!
Glad you brought this up @Stepan_Galkin! Since this is basically a duplication of the requests @rothnic quoted, could you please be sure to “heart” those as well? There’s no clear way to know if the Fibery team is counting your request alongside those, so it would be great to get your “heart” of support to leave no doubt!
…and I can’t help but mention yet again that we have here another example of fragmented requests in this community that an organized voting / request tracking approach would solve, right @Oshyan?
One particularly useful feature that is relatively new in Jira is the ability to pin fields. Jira is highly customizable, and they added this feature which really helps when you get a ton of fields, which can also happen in Fibery, in particular as long as we don’t have Polymorphic Relations.
Some fields are already pinned, such as “Created by” and “Created date”, but to the bottom of the Entity. In some cases actually I’d like those fields at the top!
Yes, please. File this with Customizable Entity Views
Great point Matt, we need a whole group around this subject…I really wish the team would at least think seriously about grouping requests. I know they won’t do votes as has been discussed many a time, but at least grouping would help organize this board. There is only so much relying on simply searching around in Discourse will do…
I might draw the loose analogy of using Gmail with no folders, and having to rely on search only to find stuff…
We have this in mind as Important fields. Overall, we are discussing major Entity View re-work, that includes new 2-panel navigation, blocks, primary/secondary info sections, etc.
Ok that sounds like some exciting improvements indeed Michael. Wishing you guys big success in implementing them soon, my team could really use them!
One thing that I do like about jira and the new Azure DevOps is the ability to create a custom faceplate form for different types of field. This usually revolves around tabs but not always. It would really make a difference if fibery supported this type of customisation as well
@Paul_Cleghorn Do you mean create custom groups and DnD fields into these groups in Entity View popup?
yes. The ability to alter the entry form into multiple tabs and move fields around into groups and areas.
Yes, this is planned till public beta release.