Archived Groups/Users
Hi
Morgan
While writing user stories for group/user management, we have come across the following use case: when looking at the Active Groups table, if a user sets the time period to be in the past, how do analytics for then-active but now-archived groups show up?
Given that user's intent is probably to report on overall usage over a certain period of time, not having data for all groups that were active then will produce flawed results.
There had been discussions about those groups showing up as anonymous, but we feel this might be frustrating from an analytics/reporting standpoint.
To address this, we propose to slightly modify the Active Groups table and active vs. archived behaviour to become an All Groups table and all vs. archived behaviour.
The main difference resides in the fact that archived groups can appear inside the All Groups table, but no action could be performed on them and they would not be clickable to view details, as appears on the following screen:
As you can see, the before-last group shows up in the now-labeled All Groups table, but its name doesn't link to anything, the Group Manager, Status, Research Notepad and # of Licenses columns reflect its archived state, and no bulk or individual action can be performed on it.
That way, the data is still available to really reflect overall usage over a specific time period, without compromising accurate group management. This also solves the 'Active' term issue, since we now have 'All' vs. 'Archived'.
The same logic could be applied to users, both in the general Users table and for Users within groups.
What do you think?
Guillaume
Morgan
While writing user stories for group/user management, we have come across the following use case: when looking at the Active Groups table, if a user sets the time period to be in the past, how do analytics for then-active but now-archived groups show up?
Given that user's intent is probably to report on overall usage over a certain period of time, not having data for all groups that were active then will produce flawed results.
There had been discussions about those groups showing up as anonymous, but we feel this might be frustrating from an analytics/reporting standpoint.
To address this, we propose to slightly modify the Active Groups table and active vs. archived behaviour to become an All Groups table and all vs. archived behaviour.
The main difference resides in the fact that archived groups can appear inside the All Groups table, but no action could be performed on them and they would not be clickable to view details, as appears on the following screen:
As you can see, the before-last group shows up in the now-labeled All Groups table, but its name doesn't link to anything, the Group Manager, Status, Research Notepad and # of Licenses columns reflect its archived state, and no bulk or individual action can be performed on it.
That way, the data is still available to really reflect overall usage over a specific time period, without compromising accurate group management. This also solves the 'Active' term issue, since we now have 'All' vs. 'Archived'.
The same logic could be applied to users, both in the general Users table and for Users within groups.
What do you think?
Guillaume
This is a good idea, but I if we're going to apply this method, we should create three different views: (1) All, (2) Current (Active and Non-Active), and (3) Archived, because there will be instances where you want to remove archived groups from the active groups table.
Also, the Current view should be the default view when the user navigates to the Group page.
Thanks,
Morgan