Hide Non-Class-Specific Property Node Selection Menu Options

[KeithTK]

If I've just wasted time digging through the ridiculous class selection menu, why do I have to waste more going over all the less specific properties?

It is particularly painful when having to scroll to items off-screen, and do it multiple times for nested options.

Hide the higher level stuff!  Put it in a menu with a better name than I could come up with or at least hide it with an expandable arrow.

These menus need way more improvement than this, but for a step-1 this is easy to implement, I hope. 

[KeithTK]

This is one of the times I wish the Idea Exchange allowed editing of ideas or at least some method of killing them permanently.  

Starting a new idea is OK so long as it doesn't earn a duplicate tag (the superceded idea should get the unfavorible status and defer to the better idea but it doesn't work that way) but clutters searching of ideas when the original one remains on the Exchange for eternity...

[KeithTK]

AQ has given me some hope for the future if usage statistics are monitored, but I would think making them opt-OUT not opt-in would drastically alter the data.  It would still let corporate admins force the opt-out at install for fear of proprietary info gathering but someone like me that never noticed opt-in could have been contributing and voting for the correct way of doing things, i.e. my way.  

And just now looking at the opt-in within 2012 I hope the wording is better in 2013.  I would always opt-in to a program described in AQ's comment, but the difference in wording on the actual selection screen is bad.  It sounds very boiler-plate which instantly earns a 'no'.  

If it said things like:

Help NI prioritize usability and feature enhancements...    

We will never collect any strings, formulas, or other user-input data..

Only statistical data on user experience will be monitored

No identifying data is sent, and any recorded data is not saved on a per-user basis

Just suggestions.

[tst]

>...Windows avoids this by using a specific search box, if the name displayed in the property node could act as that search... I think there is alrady an idea for that

There is - http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Add-Intellisense-support-to-the-property-node/idi-p/15...

It was linked two from two separate comments above (three if you count the quote).

[AristosQueue (NI)]

KeithTK: There's a difference between

-- what I can say here is our intent and belief in the current status of the program and

-- what NI can say in a legally binding document.

I haven't read the text lately, but in general, in today's American society, individuals and companies have to claim the legal right to be evil while stating in a non-binding forum they do not intend to exercise that right. Otherwise they open themselves up to lawsuits from someone else's interpretation of evil.

This isn't the sort of information that is worth a lawsuit to fight over. If you trust that NI is trying to be good and will make a good effort to set things right if we screw up and over reach then please opt in. If you don't trust us, opt out. I know trust in an organization is in short supply these days, but I like to think NI has done a better job than most to earn that.

[KeithTK]

NI is ahead of the curve for customer agreements with the summary that doesn't require scrolling and a fine print document with a page count in the single digits.  

You've gained at least 1 more opt-in with casual forum comments, and I promise to not mention your name in any lawsuit 

Personally I'm happy if from now on NI gains fewer opt-ins for any reason.  Wouldn't want to dilute my vote.

Its unfortunate that users like me have lost trust in such legal agreements and their isn't much a single organization can do to improve that.

Side note:

I think if it wasn't for your feedback, no matter how informal it is, the various NI forums would lose 90% of their value and I'd utilize them rarely.  -Here's hoping you get the deserved credit from NI internally.-  Especially since your feedback is about the only way to tell if an idea is reasonable to implement or is not worth discussing.   I've tried to break ideas into the smallest possible changes for just that reason. I keep wishing for additional status for ideas of 'Has Potential' or 'In Your Dreams' in order to thin out the massive 'New' list but I think that idea is already in the second of those two. 

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Thanks, Kieth.

[Darren]

Any idea that has received less than 2 kudos within 2 years after posting will be automatically declined.