Isilion
When naming the feature, if you focus on what does it do (the process) that's filtering. If you focus what does it produce, then you can say that is a report. 

I personally found it confusing the name "report". When I was looking to visualize my brain just taking out a few things I was looking for a "filter" option. "Report" makes me think of static documents generated at a given point in time, and that are a separate thing from the object of my work and its processes.

This is just because that's the mental models I personally have for "Filter" and "Report", of course, but I'd like to know what do you think. 
Quote
metta
Interesting! This was exactly the reaction I had initially -- and I am still partial to "filters" instead of "reports".

However, with a quick look at the "reports" function in TB8, there is actually a set of 3 "filters" within the report function that allows the user to set up what is essentially a filter-within-a-filter.

Perhaps this is part of the historical reason for naming the main filtering function a "report"?
Quote
Isilion
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it might have a more technical reason behind it. In some environments, programmers call "reports" at the result of a query to the database, which means they ask the database for some information and it returns a "report". What we are doing when we open the reports UI and selecting filters is exacly that: querying the database, which returns a report (the list of thoughts below the filters). Hence the name report. 

Another common word for that in programming is "View". Both words are technical language and will be understood by programmers, but since users may not be programmers, I think that referring to what they want to do (filtering) would be more easily understood - just my opinion, of course.

I understand your point about the filters. I'd say that we could call the functionality "Filters", and let it group a set of filters. 

How does it sound?
Quote
metta
Thanks for your additional feedback, Isilion.

Your clarification about the possible technical reason for the term "report" makes good sense, and it was actually in this sense that I had interpreted the TB's use of the term: specifically, the reported result of a database query.

At this point, either "reports" or "filters" would work for me -- but my guess is TB team would rather not change the term at this point since so much documentation about TheBrain's features (videos, users guides, etc.) is already based on the term "report".

I am still curious, though, how others (both technically inclined and not) feel about the use of each term...?
Quote
eeik

Simply put, UX copy should *never* be tied to technical implementation, reflect technical debt, or simply be left "as-is" to atrophy in-product as feature areas evolve for the sake of documentation pruning efforts.

If the feature area is "properly lit" with supportive UX copy that informs users what a feature set does and how to engage with it, old support documentation becomes irrelevant and newer support documentation can be updated and simplified for the new approach ... eyes v10 release 😉

Since you're looking for thoughts on this topic, my approach would be to explore the user actions, the whys, that lead to the desire to "filter" thoughts in the first place. Search is one tool, it does what it does, "add search results to selection" is another tool (driven from search box context) and it does what it does. Both of these function quite well for situational ephemeral tasks.

This "reports" feature set in my mind could begin to push towards a far richer "dynamic filtered brain view" that I'd love to see further explored. I've done a ton of user experience envisioning in this area and find it a quite unexplored space as presently implemented.

The image below is a quickly doctored and focused glimpse into one portion of a product UX exploration that my partner and I were previously working through in which we landed upon a "curation" conceptual data structure which would be quite powerful if implemented well:

UX Exploration.png 

The idea herein would be that a collection of "filtered thoughts" could be gathered together (based upon their underpinning relationships and/or based upon specific secondary meta-search criteria similar to what is currently expressed in the reports section) and then this "curation" construct could then be pinned and/or saved as its own top-level "thought" node to recall and/or re-invoke said bespoke filtered thought collection at a later time.

The potential power of TheBrain's "reports", historically speaking, has largely been lost on me personally as a TheBrain user as they feel quite ephemeral as implemented which the previously noted search and add to selection features already handle quite efficiently. The idea of saving and/or sharing a "filtered view" of my brain with my future self or another user via an online brain by way of a single "curation thought node" makes a good deal of sense to me when driven by a specific need to share a subset of my brain.

To personalize a hypothetical user experience journey of this curation construct a bit further ... 
... let's say, for example, as an author, I've generated a collection of top level "thoughts" within my brain to act as a compendium for my latest publication. The publication itself traverses (in a traditional linear manner) a great deal of content within my brain. In order to give a new reader a more dynamic and multi-dimensional glimpse into the highlights and/or a chapter by chapter compendium dataset to consider as they read, I'd like to assemble a curation from my master brain that serves to anchor a reader's journey into my broader brain by way of a tailored subset that I deem relevant. Knowing that my curation has some some dynamic filtration criteria, I can publish my curation once and trust that as I continue to build out my brain over time, new and relevant thoughts will continue to surface for future readers as they visit my compendium brain via this curation node.

Anyhow, a few rough bits to consider ... anyone inclined to dig in a bit deeper on this with me, please don't hesitate to reach out directly 👍

Quote
eeik
Oh, one further point, I should clarify that I do appreciate some of the features of the current "reports" area when it comes to thought pruning and grooming. For instance, the "Orphan Thoughts" or "Duplicate Thoughts" filters ... these in my mind could even graduate to first order features perhaps accessed even from the "File -> Utilities" area of the menu bar.

Again, as one looks as the "whys" of user experience journeys, all sorts of new possibilities emerge 🦄
Quote
metta
@eeik ~

Thanks for taking time to share your feedback. I'm just now catching up on my backlog of forum posts, and I appreciate you sharing your ideas on curation possibilities within TheBrain. Good food for thought!
Quote
eeik
@metta, of course! I thoroughly enjoy envisioning new features and putting together rough plans for how they might come together. There is SO MUCH I'd love to do with TheBrain and would hate to start from scratch given the great work that the team has put in on the product over the years. Eagerly awaiting the initial API and I'm really curious to know what might be in scope for an initial stab at this!
Quote
miadonis
@Isilion I see what you mean. I assumed you could export a report from the Reports area but you can't. Saved Reports is more like a snapshot of a number of filters.

To export a "report" you have to choose a Saved Report, add to selection and then export only selection. Two of those three steps happen outside of the Reports area.

Regards,
Matt

MacOS 10.14.1TB 10.0.25

Quote
metta
Thanks for the tip, miadonis. Very helpful!
Quote

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter        Visit TheBrain Blog   Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Twitter       Like Us on Facebook   Facebook         Circle Us on Google+  Google         Watch Us on Youtube  YouTube       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software