LDraw.org Discussion Forums
Aligning Categories to user expectations - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Aligning Categories to user expectations (/thread-9783.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Max Martin Richter - 2013-08-29

AFAIK there are two versions of your mentioned shovel. One with an embossed Fabuland Logo and one without.
The newer version (without FL-Logo) is the one, that is used in the Belleville sets. Nevertheless, the "old" Fabuland versions is used in a Model Team set.
And there is another part, (it's not modeled for LDraw yet, but the Fabuland Hook Bricklink Link was used a City set 1993, too)
So this could end in an endless discussion about the category sometimes ;-)

/Max


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Magnus Forsberg - 2013-08-29

Do you mean this one?
http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/catkeyfaq/


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Steffen - 2013-08-29

ah, yes, thank you.

yes, that list IMHO lacks the mentioned categories.

Fabuland:
there are not many Fabuland-specific parts. Mainly the big house building panels, the figures
and some accessories.
Yes, the shovel for example later appeared in another set, but the predominant existence
definetely was Fabuland.

Pov-Ray:
I think we should _not_ add this as official category.
We in the past have removed all POVRay-specific stuff (like inline POVRay code) from our parts.
So I suggest to prepend a ~ to the only file (light.dat) and obsoletize it.

EDIT: I changed my mind, see above

String:
yes, let's have this as new category!
do we also need "Rubberband"?

Duplo:
There do not exist too many Duplo parts.
You usually want to have them all available together.
You'll not want to look in "Train" for the Duplo Train parts.
I clearly favor to have all Duplo stuff in ONE category.

Primo:
the same analogously


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Allen Smith - 2013-08-29

Wow, this gives me an incredible warm fuzzy feeling! Thanks!

To the ones with outstanding questions, here are my humble opinions:

Duplo
I suspect most people don't build with Duplo. About the only time I see it in MOCs is to provide filler for mountain interiors. That's why I think one category is sufficient for it. Bricklink has a whole bunch of Duplo categories, and I think they're mostly noise. Note that I don't consider Primo or Quatro to be Duplo; they deserve their own sections.

Pov-RAY
I honestly have no idea what to do with this thing. But the underlying concept of a user-positionable light source is neat.

Roof // 6121, 44511 move to ???
Those look like panels to my mental taxonomy. Bricklink calls them roofs. So maybe that's what they are.

String // should be official category
I said new category because they don't look like anything else to me. That said, the parts are basically useless as is. Flexi parts a whole problem of their own, and that brings up incorporating LSynth segment pieces in the official library. Which is another topic.

Fabuland
I agree this is murky. It doesn't help that Fabuland is obscure. I had no idea how many amazing parts were in Fabuland until after I'd been an AFOL for years. Lego has also repurposed a lot of Fabuland pieces over the years (such as the slide, which was used in Paradisa sets). I guess I figure if it was originally debuted in Fabuland, and was obviously designed for the scale of Fabuland figures, or the Fabuland vibe, it qualifies as a Fabuland part.

In practice, I'd usually just do whatever Bricklink did.

87747 "Bar 0.5L" but in Minifig Accessory
Well, it most closely resembles other things currently in the bar category, such as 88695, 48729, and 64727.


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Ben Supnik - 2013-08-30

Hi Allen,

I was going to try to keep my mouth shut because I use BrickSmith as a power user and thus my ideas are probably bad for new users, but...

I think it would be useful from a UI perspective to have a few (or one) broad filter button that virtually cuts the library down to a smaller number of items outside the category system. The idea would be to make the whole library appear smaller temporarily in the UI for the purpose of searching. (If this happens, then the user not knowing the category is unimportant - 'all categories' can be searched without getting 1000 bricks if "1x2" is in the search term.)

In this scheme reasonable filters might be:
- Parts having stickers and/or printing.
- Sub-parts, or anything deprecated or moved - I'm not sure how much of this shows up now.
- Parts belonging to clear building subsets (e.g. duplo).

With a small (or one) filter, the user could toggle between "the kitchen sink" and "normal stuff" pretty easily. I would hope that users have a good intuition as to when what they are looking for is normal or weird.

(When my brother and I were young and had real legos, we specifically put the weird/useful/rare pieces into a separate box - hinges, rare windscreens, tiles with printing, slope bricks with computers, etc. If an eight year old can do it, maybe a new user can too. :-)

cheers
Ben


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Scott Wardlaw - 2013-08-30

I couldn't agree more with this. We need to align our categories with one of the two major supliers (Bricklink or LEGO). LEGO's categories are even more worthless than ours (though they are improving).

Because the parts list has grown so much with duplicate parts (with a different graphic) and assemblies of other parts, my last software project was aimed at reducing the parts list to only those parts that I was interested in:

[Image: 6552228707_3b4f37b024_o.jpg]

I abandoned it, as only one person was interested:
http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?tid=2747&pid=2747#pid2747

Scott


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Chris Dee - 2013-08-30

Allen Smith Wrote:87747 "Bar 0.5L" but in Minifig Accessory
Well, it most closely resembles other things currently in the bar category, such as 88695, 48729, and 64727.

It's not just us that have struggled with these, as there is no consistency in the categorisation elsewhere.
87747 (Bar 0.5L with Curved Blade 2L) - BrickLink: Animal, Body Part; LEGO: Animal And Accessories For Animals
88695 (Bar 0.5L with Faceted Spike 1L) - BrickLink: Large Figure Part; LEGO: Figure, Special
48729 (Bar 1.5L with Clip) - BrickLink: Bar; LEGO: Connectors
64727 (Bar 0.5L with Blade 3L) - BrickLink: (Other); LEGO: Animal And Accessories For Animals
Also:
11089 (Claw Flexible 4L with Bar 0.5L) - BrickLink: Animal, Body Part; LEGO: Animal And Accessories For Animals

Apart from 48729, which I think is genuinely a "Bar", maybe all the others are "Figure Accessory" or a new category "Animal Accessory"?


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Chris Dee - 2013-08-30

Allen Smith Wrote:Pov-RAY
I honestly have no idea what to do with this thing. But the underlying concept of a user-positionable light source is neat.

light.dat isn't really a part, it's a "helper" file but has lived in the parts folder since the very beginning of LDraw. I don't think there is anything else like it, so maybe it does need a category of it own - "Helper"?


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Tim Gould - 2013-08-30

Handy. I'm more of a command line and scripts man myself. Hence the easily processed .xml output from LDMakeList Wink

Tim


Re: Aligning Categories to user expectations - Orion Pobursky - 2013-08-30

Why not allow multiple categorizations rather than try to shoehorn every part into one specific category?