First I would like to thank the team for implementing new features for the graph view and second I wanted to share some of my opinion on it:
I’m not sure wether or not it’s a design choice but the default background color of objects in the graph view has changed to black and upon hover they switch to a transparent one while an orange frame appear around them. I’m not sure this make sense because aesthetically transparent in both cases is more appealing imo.
I believe the addition of the “labels” option is a nice touch but I can’t say the same about “markers”. I am happy that it’s an option as I keep it turned off.
I think bot the search and filter functionalities are not ready yet as they don’t work as of right now.
I dearly hope that we get the “attract and repel” features as part of the force between the nodes (objects) back. It made the graph view alive and playful but right now it’s pretty lifeless and boring.
The addition of the “icon” option is a welcome one since we can only have circles and lines in our graph view and hopefully with color customization later down the line, it would make the experience that much better.
For some reason we can’t zoom out past a certain limited level. Is it by design or…?
Some thing I noticed is that “show on graph” options are extremely buggy and it will make the node to go crazy until we can select one of the objects. I hope it would get fixed in the future.
I’m still waiting and hoping for the implementation of the “local graph view” with the upcoming widgets feature as only then the true potential of the graph view would be unleashed.
I would need more information on problems here and some more elaborate description on each point with problems. Maybe we can add some of these to our graph issues.
As of the 0.30.6-beta, Some of the problems I’ve mentioned is fortunately solved. The Animations are much smoother, the zoom range has improved ( maybe give us a little bit more zoomed out view? so that we can have a birds eye view of all the component?).
But I wanted to make a suggestion to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Right now, the size of the objects remains the same ( maybe they even get smaller) as we zoom in and out past a certain level but given the fact that we have the option to show the icons in the graph view, wouldn’t it be nicer for the icons to get magnified so that we can see the image/icon itself better and clearer as we zoom in?
I think that would be much more pleasing to the UX that we have the ability/option to view the images/icons in a bigger settings as we zoom in closer in our graph.
Zoom out is currently minimum, it’s not allowed by the library, so the only option is to tweak physical forces of how nodes are distant from one to another, so we did just that.
As for the zooming of icons - we should keep the balance between small graph with low amount of nodes and edges for new users and huge graph with large amount of nodes for power users so for the latter imo everything would make a noise, even zooming the icons.
I suggest we test the current version on a larger portion of users and make change according to feedback. Graph would definitely be improved more, but for now I think it’s working fine. Another thing is that I’ve removed yesterday this annoying loading time which was synthetical and now it’s loading much faster.
The improvement to the loading time is a great improvement to have, so thanks.
I didn’t understand this part. I agree that you should strike a balance for new and old users who have different graph size but I thought this zooming in thing is a design decision. I mean in Obsidian, as we zoom in to the graph, everything magnifies and gets bigger. I don’t understand how the magnification of Icons as we zoom in would make a noise because you see the lines between nodes would fill the space and prevent multiple nodes from cluttering the space.
@ignatovv I think this is more of a product question or personal preferability. I can make a setting if icons are zoomed for example, cause I personally prefer it in the current state.
I agree. It’s more of a personal preference but I think it doesn’t make sense to have the option of seeing the icons of the objects but not the option to see them clearly to a point where the image/icon is clearly visible as you zoom in to the graph view.
Hello, thanks for the feedback!
In the current zoom limits of the graph, I guess it doesn’t help much, but please share any ideas we will try our best.
you’re welcome! Is it possible for objects’ icons not to shrink down as we zoom in? it’s so weird to see them become less and less distinguishable as we zoom in.
Good conversation. For the record, I agree with most comments here. Yet, the user should have the ability to adjust, and that capability is quite limited now.
What was the design philosophy for use of the graph? It isn’t clear. For example, Obsidian’s graph view is much more flexible. I assume that is because the designers stuck with the philosophy that it should be user-configurable, just like the rest of the application, because users find their own use for such objects.
Anytype designers seem to give less power to users, which isn’t always bad. However, the purpose of the graph is to visualize ideas via clusters. This can really only be done visually.
In the present graph view design, this isn’t possible because it is so restricted. The graph in Anytype is only useful in viewing node connections, but the “Flow” view is better at this and relegates “Graph” view to eye candy only.
I have assumed Anytype designers understood this and planned to improve its configurability, but maybe that isn’t the case. What really is its point in the present state? Because by this thread, it appears its design is intentional, and I don’t understand it. Maybe I’m not alone?
I agree. Graph view in its current state is heavily underutilized especially given the fact that I believe it is a missed opportunity not to include the “local” graph view as a widget in the new beta build.
Right now, the lack of customizability makes the graph view almost useless because you can’t make anything of it when your database gets bigger and bigger. You end of with a while load of floating objects, which you have a hard time finding the object you want in order to see its relations, backlink and links to it.
As you mentioned the flow view is better for this purpose but always is one click ( plus the increasingly long loading screen away); Whereas if implemented, with a local graph view in the sidebar as a widget, you can have an overview of all the links and backlink for your specific object to all the other ones at a glance and you can immediately act on it.
This process is achieved to perfection in Obsidian as you mentioned yourself. I agree that total control offered by the likes of Obsidian and Logseq is not necessarily a good thing. Especially when you want something like the WYSIWYG + space builder approach of anytype but I think too that they are not yet certain as to which direction they should consider for developing the graph view.
I think the general idea is to give a kind of overview effect, from which some meaningful insights could potentially be gathered. It will probably come together once multi-spaces and the Co-operating System are opened. That use-case of discoverability, shared interests, with an eagle eye view of the ants working away in their little Communities is pretty clear IMO.
As far as Personal Space, my thought has always been that the Graph should be a true object-based environment, with genuine Modularity. Imagine if Objects could be highlighted and easily populated and ported with Relations by D&D or hotkeys, and if links had elasticity to snap them around from one port to another. You could quickly append Objects or rope in orphans while never having to enter an Object.
The process would be creatively intuitive, quick, & fun, plus a great addition to the existing functionality. It would complete the entire experience for me.
Regarding the overview effect, I believe Anytype is more or less there. But I strongly believe anytype should follow in the footsteps of Obsidian in giving the users the ability to 1st) manipulate the graph overview, which objects and relations and nodes are being shown to them at any time and 2nd) the ability to see how each object is related to others, what relations its using, backlinks, etc at a glance in the form of local graph as a widget living in the sidebar.
As for your idea for graph being manipulative and an object based environment, I’ve never heard of it and I believe as you said, it can be a brand-new, intuitive experience for the users
Thanks for comments. For the record, I agree with all of them regarding the value of flexibility and end-user configurability.
Honestly I haven’t heard much, but what I have read by those seemingly close to Anytype development is an intentional lack of user customization (e.g. flexibility) of the graph view in particular. The ideas that @Angelo speak of seem great, but also miss the point of a graph view containing user-generated objects. In this case, all user-generated objects.
This approach seems at odds with a development philosophy of open-source, local-first, user control. Why fix this context and remove the user’s ability to use it in fine-grained work? In general, we users will find the best way to utilize these tools, they should be at least flexible enough to make individual use-cases possible.
Where can the overall philosophy / vision of Anytype’s developers on graph view be found? It seems like we are all guessing.
Not for the sake of being restrictive, rigidity is not a principle of Anytype. Rigidity occurs only to the extent that different systems within a multi-faceted software often conflict, so there are logical reasons from a programming perspective to design rigidly to achieve the desired basic functions.
There’s no shortage of ideas at Anytype. Fitting them all together into the big picture requires a lot of hours in the think-tank with the team, churning over and optimizing what we have currently, while maintaining the trajectory of what we ultimately intend to achieve.
There’s plenty of room to grow and conversations like this one are crucial in that process, so thank you for sharing your point of view.
The Objects that would benefit most from the modularity I referred to would be user-generated, it didn’t occur to me that I should’ve said that out loud. In my idea you’d be able to generate Objects and Relations on the fly as well, as to work with the Graph as a sort of hands on editor/canvas in it’s own right.
It isn’t clear whether my point about the uselessness of the present graph view context is understood, but that may be what you are alluding to in your comments about “design rigidity” and programming. I definitely understand there are other priorities.
This is why I keep asking about the original philosophy behind the graph view. If this exists, at least I could go read it for myself and stop bugging the community attempting to understand what philosophy was in mind for the graph view when it was designed. Its intended use still isn’t clear for anything other than strictly viewing connections. If that is the only intent (it seems to be), then Anytype is missing an opportunity in focusing only on its use as graphical representation for community networking. Right now it has little use for an individual.
Sorry if I keep repeating myself, it’s difficult to understand where to go for the details I’m looking for (design philosophy and intended use).
You’re not wrong, the current state of the graph suffers from a lack of confluence. Mainly it looks beautiful, you can navigate with it somewhat and see all of your Objects in one place. Otherwise it’s not super useful on the day to day. However taking all our previous conversation into account, we can rest assured that this is not the final destination for the Graph View by a long shot, we have big plans for it.
All good, you’re not alone in your sentiment, nor the first to say it.
because you see the lines between nodes would fill the space and prevent multiple nodes from cluttering the space.