My big interest in grouping is a way to semantically tie a set of cards together. I’ve been talking about this on the forums for a year and a half
It’s not clear how far this current iteration will go. It doesn’t sound like we’ll be able to give groups a name. That is fine, but I hope whatever you do implement doesn’t preclude or obstruct us from getting that in the future.
@sts I’m curious about your use case here. It sounds like you want a way to group cards because you want to keep cards in a group relatively positioned. You said it’s “too easy to pull a card out of context by mistake”. Presumably, if you the bunch of cards were grouped, pulling on one card would move all the other ones in the same group along with it. Is that what you were thinking? What are other use cases you have in mind for grouping?
I don’t understand this. Without a visual indicator on cards in a group, I don’t see it being very valuable to group cards. Also, this doesn’t meet one of the initial design goals (which may have now changed) from this thread, which says “be able to see what’s in a group upfront”.
The way I see grouping being useful is the ability to start to enforce some structure and shape in a space. I’ve mentioned some example use cases here: More glue and structure to build with - #5 by bentsai
Other quick questions/comments
- Do groups belong to the space or the user?
- Will groups work multiplayer? If so, I guess collaborators can define/change groups?
- What you’re currently describing sounds more along the lines of a saved selection. It’s more a feature that lets you more easily move a group of cards, rather than give that group of cards semantics. Is that how you see it?
- Let’s say I setup a kanban board (cards representing tasks, and moving them spatially from To Do, In Progress, Done). Would grouping make this easier at all? What if the To Do column is a group? How easy would it be for me to move a card from To Do to In Progress (change a card from one group to another)?