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

[Hugues Boily]

Hi James,

1. Yes, it is intentional; we want to test user interest in these 
additional resources.

2. I'd rather push the pilot date an extra day forward than not include 
related artifacts.

Talk to you tomorrow
Hugues


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
>
>