Fusion configuration table format has gotten worse

[Julie_7]

I was not happy with the initial formatting of the configuration table, but the new format is much worse. Instead of being a normal table with the ability to resize column width and sort by header, etc, now it:

  1. has a huge amount of wasted space between items causing the table to be extremely wide on screen. (I had to actually make arbitrary themes from some columns to make it usable for one model.)

  2. cuts off text

  3. still does not allow click on name field to rename

In addition, the configuration table pane is not scroll-able which requires collapsing and expanding themes to see everything when there are many themes or rows.  I have even gotten into a state where the "close" button was off screen and there was no way to get it to show again even after collapsing all themes.

Instead of using individual text boxes and having the name column not being editable, please just use a standard table with the name as column 1 of the table.

Here is a simple example using real tables (I did put everything into one Excel table for simplicity, but I do expect that Fusion would maintain separate theme tables as it does currently.)

Notice:

  - fields in yellow are not editable

  - that parameters are colored differently than themes in column headers to make it obvious the "type" of each column.

  - The name of a theme can be edited directly either in the configuration table or in theme table.

  - if there is nothing to the right of a column then the value can overflow the field boundary, as in module height. This is optional.

  - there is no wasted horizontal space and columns can be resized to make it more usable.

I think this is sufficient to convey my idea, so I am going stop with this.

[TrippyLighting]

If you right-click on the Name you'll get a menu selection:

I agree that there is quite a bit of room for improvement on the table layout!

[EvanGu]

Hi @Julie_7, thank you for the feedback. We have a team working on the table improvement which would provide more flexibility of edit, resize, reorder...

[gautham_kattethota]

@Julie_7 

We have not made any significant changes to the UI and the interaction elements in the Configuration table since we released this functionality in September of 2024.  So I would like to understand why you state that the table UI has gotten worse. 

Infact, we have been making smaller quality of life improvements to the table since we released. Significant changes to the table UI  are in the works and will come in a later release, as stated by my colleague Evan above.

Some specific replies to your comments:

• Columns are added with a fixed width, but are resizable (to fit the text) by double-clicking on the column header.  Once expanded, this change is recorded and persists across Fusion sessions
• Double (slow) click to rename a configuration name is being worked on and will be available in a Fusion release pretty soon
• The Close button going off the screen is a known issue and is not specific to Configurations dialog.  Other command dialogs in Fusion have the same issue.  To get that button back, you can dock the command dialog to the right edge of the Fusion screen
• Scroll bar does appear horizontally or vertically when the contents go beyond the size of the Configurations dialog.  Is there a specific workflow where you dont see them?

As stated above, we are making significant changes for the Configurations UI that will make the interaction and appearance fit more naturally with a table.  And in the meanwhile, we are always trying to address smaller improvements that are meaningful for our users. 

Regards

[Christoph_360]

Hello

---

@Julie_7  schrieb: Fusion configuration table format has gotten worse

I have had good experiences with the Updates to the Configurations

The fact that the Rows and Columns can now be reordered manually has made my work much easier.

Mfg

Christoph

[Julie_7]

Thanks. I know how to rename with the context menu. I just would like it to be easier by just typing in that field.

[Julie_7]

I wish that I could go back in time to see what it looked like the first time I used it. My memory is that the individual fields in the rows were not separated by so much white space.
It could be that I am just mis-remembering and my current reaction is because I have a table with many columns and the field names are longer.

One thing to keep in mind is that consistency helps the user. In the browser I can use the context menu to rename a component or I can just click twice and edit in place, and that is not even part of a table. However, the configuration table only allows using the context menu.
Similarly, I can resize the columns in the parameters table, but the configurations table does not work at all like the parameters table.

Thanks.

[gautham_kattethota]

@Julie_7 we are working on some short-term improvements as well as some long-term improvements to the UI and usability of the configuration table.  The Parameter and the Configuration tables use different UI framework, so the behaviors dont exactly match.  As always, we appreciate your feedback and hope the future improvements will meet your needs more closely.

Gautham

[Julie_7]

I just reread you message. I missed the column width resizing. Thanks. That will help.
However, again that is not the common way to manage columns, not even in Fusion.
For 30 years I have been clicking the column header to sort and the divider bar between headings to auto resize.

Please make the configuration tables work like the parameters table which does sort and resize in the standard way.

[Julie_7]

IMHO, Using multiple UI frameworks in the same product seems like a bad idea to me, (as a software engineer with over 30 years experience).
- It makes the UI inconsistent
- it complicates the build process
- it is an additional and unnecessary source of bugs