Inconsistancy in Devices versus acquisition, and configuration tags

[jonnew]

On this page, properties are given different tags to help the user understand how they will behave:

However, "devices" is a categorization of properties, not an indication of their behavior. It also has a different appearence and so is unclear why it follows logically in this list. If we want a "devices" tag, it should be given the same appearance as the other tags and used in the same way, e.g.:

[cjsha]

The organization of properties in the docs pages is supposed to be a reflection of how properties are organized in Bonsai. For example:

h3 headers ("Configuration" and "Devices") correspond to the drop-downs highlighted in grey.
h4 headers correspond to nested drop-downs.

I just wanted to make sure you understand my thought process in the current organization of properties. With all that said, we can reorganize the properties as you suggested. I think you started describing how to to fix it, but to expand on it, I presume we should remove the "Configuration" and "Devices" headers and attribute "aggregate" or "device" badges to the various property groupings. The "Configuration" and "Devices" headers become redundant if the property groupings have those badges.

[bparks13]

I think that the proposed changes make sense, and I agree that the "Configuration" and "Devices" headers should be removed. My suggestion after that is to change the device headers (i.e., Bno055 and Nric1384 in your attached image) to be h3 headers so that they show up in the in-page TOC on the right side of the page.

While we are looking at making these changes, I also wanted to point out that some of the tags are not being displayed properly. If you navigate to the ConfigureHeadstageNric1384 page, under the Nric1384 device the calibration files do not have a tag associated with them.

I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but I think that these should be tagged the same as everything else, unless I'm missing something.

[cjsha]

It's not intentional. jonnew actually made an issue #172 about that an hour ago. There is a PR #173 to address this.

Yeah I was thinking that too, regarding converting the h4 headers to h3 (after removing the current h3 headers). Ok, I'll implement these changes