Keep Hub Classic View as a design option

[HilaryBrowning2]

We run a relatively stable/unchanging, but very well-used, Open Data site using ArcGIS Hub, and only recently noticed the change announced here: https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-hub/announcements/whats-new-on-arcgis-hub-search/

We only noticed the change when it became the default in January. As an agency that relies on Open Data to communicate with the public, we have been relying on the design of having services broken out explicitly into their constituent parts. We are happy with this style, but I understand this option will be going away next week.

I would like to request that "Classic View" be maintained as design choice or style for people who liked the way Hub used to work. If that is not possible, I would still like to see Classic View continue as a toggleable option for an extended period, in order to give organizations more time to rework their data to accommodate the new design and communicate these changes to stakeholders.

Thank you,

Hilary

[NW_10_Ted_Couillard_GISS]

Yes this would be helpful.

[TimStrickler]

This really needs to happen 

[EmikoCarrell]

This is really important. Open Data is how we as a state agency share data with the public and other government agencies. 

[ThomasHervey1]

Thank you @HilaryBrowning2 for your post and everyone else for their responses. To clarify, your concern is that the changing behavior to not show layers as individual search results will negatively impact your open data requirements, correct? Are there other reasons that you prefer the classic search view?

For context, the Hub team does intent to re-add the ability for users to search for and discover layers as sub-results nested under item results. Your feedback is helpful in our prioritization timeline of this and other search features.

[WDFWAdministrator]

I totally agree with @HilaryBrowning2 

[HilaryBrowning2]

Hi @ThomasHervey1, thank you very much for your reply. You are correct. We have designed part of our Open Data site (and the data itself) around the previous way that Hub worked with regard to the sub-layer breakout. I am confident that we can reorganize our data to accommodate any new style, but it would be nice to have a little more time to do so in a thoughtful manner, and figure out how we need to communicate this to stakeholders. I am not aware of anything else about Classic View that we would need to retain.

The biggest risk is that some organizations (particularly public ones that may be subject to litigation) have high requirements on data transparency to their stakeholders. It's helpful to be able to communicate very clearly where data are that people have come to depend on, so that they know that trusted data have not been removed or hidden by the organization. Someone may reasonably think we have removed one of the sub-layer data sets, if they expect to see the individual line item and no longer do. They may not realize it's contained within the broader data set. Again - not a deal-breaker problem - but I would appreciate some time to think about how to communicate this or decide if we need to republish some data. It's a little bit easier to make these decisions when you can toggle back and forth still to see how your site used to look.

Thank you,
Hilary

[HilaryBrowning2]

Hi all, to follow up on this - the product manager for Hub reached out to me and explained why they can't hold off on this change. I totally get it; I hadn't realize how much of an architectural rewrite this was to create, so keeping a secondary view around is asking to keep a major technical debt alive.

Our organization is going to move ahead by proactively communicating this change to our stakeholders, and also exploring a few other options, such as potentially registering individual items with Hub based on the same service (I understand this is possible but not sure how to do it yet). Thank you again to Emily and Thomas for reaching out to understand my concerns, it's much appreciated.

[AmyFish1]

I really hope that this gets resolved very soon. We want users to search for individual layers and also group them into services.  Republishing all of the layers into individual services will be not only very time consuming but also balloon our services.