0

So, I have a table that I want to group by (feature) 3 dimensions (Customer, Vendors, and Route)

Solution 1: As normal practice, I just designed 'a group by feature' on the top of the head of the table with 3 dimensions, so that user could freely group by depend on their situation.

Solution 2: However, one of my teammate suggested that we should divide into 3 tables (it means we did group by for them and divide into 3 tables with 3 dimensions; and each table is located in each tab)

Even though I feel a bit weird about the solution 2, but I do not have any strong reason to deny it. Because in his opinion, it saves user's time, they just switch tabs instead of applying the group by

I am so confused. What do you guys think?

1
  • Welcome to the site, @Tien! For me, this is a question about the use cases you need to support, which means you will have to research more on them, and describe more in this question for us to be able to answer. From a very generic point of view, I do not think that users will expect that the same content is spread across different tabs (which require people to look at all three tabs to verify it's actually identical situation). In fact, that's what "group-by" features were invented for, and in the absence of information to the contrary (see above) I would stick to them. Oct 17 at 6:46
0

Did you check the grouping and advanced grouping functionalities of other products?

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.