Simplified connections model

Kinopio Design
1

Thinking of radically simplifying the connection line system and would love to get your thoughts:

context

Right now, each connection Line is assigned to a connection Type. The Type of each Line determines it’s name and color. The idea being that multiple Lines share a type and if you change that type (e.g. the color), then all those lines will update together.

The problem is that this is kind of a confusing concept. I think the natural inclination is to think of each line as it’s own atomic thing, just like cards, boxes, etc.

Besides the concept, the use of types adds a lot of complexity to the UI. If you select some lines and want to change their color you first have to assign them a new type, then change the color of that type. Which even I get tripped up on sometimes.

Just like with other items, editing connection colors and reusing colors can be done more directly with the colorpicker instead.

The Type system was a decision from the earliest days of Kinopio – but back then there weren’t many other options like boxes or lists to add formal structure.

UI Impacts

So to give some specific examples:

  • connectionDetails: Clicking a connection line will still present options for color and name. But your edits to those will only affect the current line.
  • Filter by connection type: This option is available in search filters and in connectionDetails. Seeing as other ways to group exist, I’m not sure it’s a popular feature and would consider cutting it entirely. Alternatively this could be switched to filtering by connection Color rather than type.
  • multiSelectActions: paint selecting some connection lines will let you change their color directly, instead of only being able to change their type.

rough notes and implementation notes

I’ve been thinking about this for a while but I finally planned this out on my phone at https://kinopio.club/spec-simplified-connections-Oi4GxBQvmzLMXNQyZM7u9

1 Like
2

I agree that lines is complicated and I support simplifying things.

Only a tiny sliver of users name their types and use them semantically.

I think this is the case, but conceptually, the ability connect a type to a card is super powerful and an opportunity. Connection lines are unique because they allow you to associate meaning to a card without that card being in a box or a list. Those latter mechanisms are tied to position. What is awesome about lines is you can associate cards that are in disparate parts of a space.

This is what tags could have been, and seems like what they partially intend to achieve, but they are not it for me because tags affect the card name. They are not solely metadata.

Maybe another way to accomplish this is, using a separate card. So if I wanted to associate a bunch of cards, I would select them all and then connect them to a card that assigns some meaning. And if there were a way to, “show me all the cards attached/connected to this card”.

3

conceptually, the ability connect a type to a card is super powerful and an opportunity

I think from what I’m seeing in other ppls spaces the key word here has always been ‘conceptually’. IMO the concept is potentially powerful in a few cases, but the downside of increased complexity for everyone else doesn’t seem worth it overall.

would it make sense to use the same Color and labels to make that association instead?

So you could have a space with 5 blue lines and name one the first one you’d see and drop a label on it. That would signify to readers that other blue lines on that space share the meaning described by the label. (The major side-advantage of using labels is you don’t have to click a line first to figure out it’s meaning)