Project Proposal: Additional search views

[fcoveram]

Due date:

2023-05-12

Assigned reviewers

• @obulat
• @krysal

Description

This PR is the kick-off of the Additional search views project: #410

[github-actions]

Full-stack documentation: https://docs.openverse.org/_preview/1890

Please note that GitHub pages takes a little time to deploy newly pushed code, if the links above don't work or you see old versions, wait 5 minutes and try again.

You can check the GitHub pages deployment action list to see the current status of the deployments.

[krysal]

Thanks for starting this proposal! I left a few questions and suggestions. The main section that I see needs more some information is the Requirements as this will guide us on what to implement here. I remember you show us some mockups time ago and those sparkled several questions, that will be a good place to start I think.

[krysal]

A call for the a11y team of the WordPress project for revision of the mockups would be nice here.

[fcoveram]

Good call. Based on how the discussion unfolded, I will ping a11y folks in the design ticket.

[sarayourfriend]

I would prefer to see an expansion of the requirements section with detailed expected outcomes: specifically, how the views would work on a general level. This is important for guiding the design discussion, understanding the scope of the project, and even guessing at how many implementation plans would be needed. The existing requirements description is so broad that the number of required implementation plans could be anywhere from as little as a single, small implementation plan to several (up to 3 or 4 I can easily imagine) significant plans, including one for API changes.

[fcoveram]

Great suggestion @sarayourfriend. I can create the design ticket and assess the project scope within the first iteration. The mockup I am handling frames the changes considerably.

I will block this PR until having a solid notion of the implementation plan(s) required.

[obulat]

@fcoveram, after thinking a lot about the comments in this project, I realized that we haven't fully shared our assumptions here. Because we have different assumptions, we are talking about different things. For example, some comments talk about searching within these views, whereas I was assuming that these views (in the scope of this project, not in the future) will only be the items that are filtered by the specific tag/provider/creator. I do remember you showing us some experimental designs for improvements in searching by tag/provider/creator within the search bar, but I assumed that those are not in scope for this project.

I've written out my assumptions of what this project is as a comment on the project requirements. Very curious if you agree with what I wrote.
I think we should first finalize the requirements and then do the designs, because otherwise you might spend too much time on work that might turn out to be not what we want to do.

[fcoveram]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

I added @obulat’s suggestion with minor copy tweaks to make it more clear for non-dev readers. I framed the requirements keeping out the feature of searching within the result pages. I can envision the complexities and uses cases crushing the experience, but I think we can address this challenge in a future release.

Providers or Sources

For the provider or source note, I’m drawn to show sources across the whole site. From a user perspective, it's clearer to show which organization provides the content you want to use, no matter what site that content lives on. This also coexists with the filters and how openverse lists sources.

Following Olga's example, if you click on NASA source, landing on the main Flickr site feels odd. I would expect to see a site only displaying NASA content.

---

Since we are tiering this discussion before any design ticket, I will remove the pause tag to continue polishing the document if needed. What do you think of the changes? Do we need something else to continue with the Implementation Plan(s) and the designs?

[openverse-bot]

Based on the high urgency of this PR, the following reviewers are being gently reminded to review this PR:

@obulat
This reminder is being automatically generated due to the urgency configuration.

Excluding weekend¹ days, this PR was updated 2 day(s) ago. PRs labelled with high urgency are expected to be reviewed within 2 weekday(s)².

@fcoveram, if this PR is not ready for a review, please draft it to prevent reviewers from getting further unnecessary pings.

Footnotes

1. Specifically, Saturday and Sunday. ↩

2. For the purpose of these reminders we treat Monday - Friday as weekdays. Please note that the that generates these reminders runs at midnight UTC on Monday - Friday. This means that depending on your timezone, you may be pinged outside of the expected range. ↩

[obulat]

I'm really excited for this project! Thank you for putting it all together, @fcoveram!

The only thing I would like to add here is "Requested Plans":

• API
• Frontend
• Design issue (if that can be called "implementation plan")

[AetherUnbound]

I'm not a requested reviewer, but I think this proposal looks great! I have two suggestions:

1. Updating the title of the proposal to be in line with our other proposals (suggestion made on that line)
2. This doesn't show up in the documentation preview because we don't have an index.md file for the additional search views. I'm happy to add that if you'd like @fcoveram, the contents of additional_search_views/index.md would be (example):

# Additional Search Views

```{toctree}
:titlesonly:
:glob:

*

[fcoveram]

Thanks for the suggestions @AetherUnbound. Feel free to add the index.md file. I'm not sure if you can or I should do it.

[AetherUnbound]

Awesome, I've merged main into this branch, added the index.md file, and added the author field in line with #2066 - you should only need to git pull now before you make any other changes!

[krysal]

It's looking good! Thanks for detailing on the requirements, the scope is clearer now. Can't wait to see your excellent designs for the new pages, Francisco!