1

I am in a situation where table columns are dependent on some filtering due to the fact some metrics are only relevant to some categories of data. There are multiple filters in a separate bar and there is a table. Use case demonstration follows.

Let's say I have a filter with values default, A, B and a table with columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

  • If the filter is set to default, columns 1, 2, 3 should be displayed
  • If the filter is set to A, then columns 1, 2, 3, 4 should be displayed
  • If the filter is set to B, then columns 1, 2, 3, 5 should be displayed

How do you see it from usability point of view? Is it not confusing when the columns appear and disappear in mentioned way?

Thanks!

0

If the "filter" option is changing columns rather than rows, then perhaps "filter" is the wrong term to use.

In DB terminology you would refer to a construction where you see a subset of the available columns as a "view". Perhaps branding the feature in this way would avoid confusion, e.g. "please choose a view..."

  • It's not that simple, because some of the filters have impact also on rows (some metrics are calculated for particular "categories" and then aggregated). The view concept however shifts me in a good direction - we might need to rethink the filtering a little and introduce something like views. Thanks! – Beau Sep 26 '18 at 10:23
  • @Beau ah yes, I suppose you could even have a 2 step thing where you choose a view and then set the filter? Glad I could help :) – Franchesca Sep 26 '18 at 13:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.