Subsciber side - specific v. general references

Morgan  

I think we need to discuss your comment in Target process surrounding 'Paragraph/Page references' and 'All References':

'All references' is a list of results that should include any reference to cited dispute documents (specific and general) references. Specific references only include references to specific paragraphs/pages/footnotes. 'All references' should include these specific references and any general references to the dispute documents. Perhaps we should go back to wording in the current application: 'Specific References' and 'All References', which should reduce confusion on this point.

If this is the case, we need to revise the UI across the research tools and document views on the subscriber side.

All references (previously called general references) was initially designed to group general references together. For the Jurisprudence Citator and Publication citator, specific references would be grouped into columns/accordions to be selected while general references would show document references directly. See below:

Specific references:

image.png 76.3 KB • Download

General References:

image.png 110 KB • Download

This division of specific and general references will no longer make sense if we combine the two types for 'All References'. So, a couple questions:

1. Is this separation valuable? 
   • If not, we can eliminate this and instead always have all references grouped together. 'General References' can become an accordion option similar to how we treat the individual paragraph/page references. 
   • The total reference count would combine all specific and general references under one label 'All References'
     
     
2.  If it is valuable, why combine the two?
   • If its valuable for users to browse list of specific references separately from non-specific references why do we need the 'all references' accordion? This should go back to a label of 'General References' and display only non-specific references.