publication years not correct in analysis view

[pparsons]

publication years not correct in analysis view

[armandidandeh]

Not sure about min and max of slider. I assume @arashsoft used to set it based on some data reading from couchdb.

[arashsoft]

Maybe Arman forgot it but I choosed 2000-2015 based on his suggestion. Anyway, there is not any limitations from my side. Just tell me min and max and I will set it.

[pparsons]

can we do it dynamically, something like 5 years before and after the grant?

[armandidandeh]

We sure can change it according to the selected award proposal, but maybe it's better to stick to one initial selection (min-5 up to max+5) and from there keep the previous value. It will be annoying if the user has to set it to 2002-2007 every time he chooses a new award.

[pparsons]

why would the user have to set it? it could be set automatically to 5+- years of the award.

[armandidandeh]

Assume a scenario: I select an award, find the related publications between 2002 and 2007. Then I want to see the same for another award. But it jump to 1999 to 2006.

[pparsons]

What about this scenario: I select an award that is active from 2011-2015. Say the publication slider is at 2006-2015. Then say the user selects another award that is now closed and was from 1993-1998. Now the slider is still at 2006-2015. Does it still make sense to do it like that?

[armandidandeh]

We have to choose which one is more desirable/annoying/repetitive.
If the user does what you say and gets nothing, we show a message that says this criteria will return nothing. However, for most scenarios, if they follow a logic, the user wants to compare the results of one with the next. Hence I guess if the user needs to set the time each time, it will be annoying.

[pparsons]

okay. i think for now it doesn't matter. let's just try to make it logical for 1 or 2 specific scenarios

[arashsoft]

I am not available today! I will back around 6pm. Please tell me which one should I apply?

[armandidandeh]

@pparsons which one are we going with?

[pparsons]

i'm not sure. maybe for now just leave it how it is. in general, we need to strategize about the whole thing more if we're going to keep this.

[armandidandeh]

👍