Skip to content
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

Smarter organization of component properties #303

Closed
feiss opened this issue Aug 18, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Smarter organization of component properties #303

feiss opened this issue Aug 18, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@feiss
Copy link
Member

feiss commented Aug 18, 2016

Component properties are currently displayed in the order defined in the schema. That's fine, so smart ordering of properties can be set. But now they are pretty random. I propose ordering them from "most useful/used" to "less useful/used".

Also, it would be very interesting to add little additions to the schema spec (aside, apart from the official spec, as a very optional and cosmetic addition to the schema for the editor) so properties could be arranged in groups:

Now:
image

After (just a quick sketch):
image

The improvement in legibility would also allow to have less vertical margin between the fields.

@fernandojsg
Copy link
Member

Yes, we could include a way to define this groups without modifying the current schema.
The user could define it, otherwise the attributes will be shown in the same order as defined in the schema.
The way to define the groups could be something like:

[
  {
    "name": "size",
    "attributes": [
      "width",
      "height",
      "width"
    ]
  },
  {
    "name": "segments",
    "attributes": [
      "segmentwidth",
      "segmentheight",
      "segmentwidth"
    ]
  }
]

@ngokevin
Copy link
Member

I think alphabetical is the easiest. There will be many third-party components and geometries that we won't have much control over or insight into. Right now, it seems we could try to manually sort the properties given there aren't very components to choose from, but in the long run it's easiest to be agnostic and do alphabetical.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants