Related artifacts relating to artifacts outside the exhibition--design or error?

[Yura Zenevich]

Also a small note,

This is a specific example where you can see that some of the related
artifacts are not present in the list of artifacts inside this exhibition :
http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/fluidengage/xml/artifact.php?Lang=2&accessnumber=M976.188.1

This document also contains an encoding problem similar to the one seen
before so I was wondering if you could take a look when you have time.

Thanks,

Yura

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Yura <yura.zenevich at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess the only thing to specify here is that not withing the same
> exhibition means that artifacts are not in the list of artifacts for
> specific exhibition (in these case these "outsider" artifacts can sometimes
> be found in the lists of related artifacts for some artifacts). Hopefully it
> helps and not confuses even more.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yura
>
>
> James William Yoon wrote:
>
>> Hi Hugues,
>>
>> Yura already pinged you about this from one point of view (re: "Related
>> Artifact thumbnails"), but here's another:
>>
>> Some of the artifacts you list as related to a pivot artifact point to
>> artifacts that are not within the same exhibition, or even a current
>> exhibition. Some things that arise from this are:
>> 1. Is this intentional? Specifically, does it make sense for a user who's
>> browsing the current exhibitions catalogue or looking at an artifact in
>> front of him at the museum to discover an artifact that's in storage? I
>> imagine this is something user testing can shed light on, but... (see next
>> point)
>> 2. Is this required for 0.3? The developers have estimated that it'll take
>> a few hours to implement (our DB currently only holds artifacts that were
>> crawled through from the exhibitions catalogues and not outside; the
>> adjustment will take time). Given the limited time we have left before QA
>> testing and the pilot, is relating artifacts to artifacts outside current
>> exhibitions a priority?
>> 3. Relating artifacts to artifacts inside a current exhibition is not an
>> issue.
>>
>> (Yura and Colin, if I'm missing stuff here or got something wrong, please
>> add/correct!)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20100209/c62cc90f/attachment.html>