Product Ideas

When adding an illustration reference, there are many options to document deviations from default reproductions. The following categories have additional options that suggest that it is necessary to select the default. Can we just remove these for clarity? They are not used and, even if they were, do not impact the public display. Position Cover -- “on cover” Back cover -- “on back cover” Frontispiece -- “on frontispiece” Foldout -- “on foldout” Regular -- nothing will render, please remove** Imaging technology Standard -- nothing will render, please remove** Infrared Uv 3d-scan X-ray Type of Photograph Full -- nothing will render, please remove** installation view framed detail verso first state earlier state archival photo present state

Add "Translated Title" field for publications. Have it behave like the translated title field for exhibitions (Display in brackets, Roman script, after the original title in Italics.)

Following the integration of publications in notes to create footnote style citations ( https://navigatingart.canny.io/feature-requests/p/link-related-publications-to-notes ), this new kind of note rendering should publish to the public display as well. The public note should include the publication rendering and a link to access the publication detail page

When adding a text reference for an artwork in a publication, there is the option to have the comment "render before details." However, there are no details that come up in the text reference. (If there are artwork details, or illustration details, they are displayed after the text reference in parentheses.) Can we remove this toggle for clarity?

The "Included Artworks" section could be optimized to provide more information so that researchers could work with the table. Indication if the artwork has been archived. Indication if the artwork has been published The Artwork Set ID's that the artwork belongs to. (It is possible that an artwork belongs to many artwork sets. What we need to be able to see is whether a certain artwork will be published. Can we filter for a specific artwork set ID number?) Update the references column so that it displays as the rendered published reference. (With all the information in the correct sequence) OR include more columns of information: alternate artwork details (especially title, date, but also medium, and dimensions, if possible) Indication that the possibly toggle is activated Review relationship between "Venue" selection and whether or not the artwork is in the "main catalogue." Does the data in this column changed based on whether the artwork is actually in the venue-specific catalogue? Review relationship between "Venue" selection and the reference data.

Currently the catalogue number is visible next to the thumbnail. However, based on the document that the researcher is using, different unique identifiers are needed in order to find the artwork. If the researcher is using an exhibition history report or publication report generated from CAT, they need the Artwork ID in order to identify the artworks. If they are consulting the original exhibition catalogue, they need the exhibition checklist number or the reference number in order to identify the artwork (especially in cases where the artwork is not published with the same title as the artwork in CAT. In the screenshot, attached, it would be immensely helpful to see "cat. no. 151")

Reputational issue for not perpetuating white invisibility in data production. Important topic in the digital humanities.

Reputational issues to prevent perpetuation of outdated western notions of gender in data production. This is an important topic in the digital humanities.

It would be helpful to be able to edit the artwork sets that an artwork belongs to directly from the artwork page. This would include removing the artwork from an artwork set or adding it to an already existing artwork set. Right now, you can only add it to a new set that you are creating right then.

I would like to address the issue that the exhibitor and the venue are often separate entities. For example, there is usually an organization or the artist arranging the exhibition, while the venue is a separate physical location. In Finland, for instance, the organizer was often the Finnish Art Society, but the exhibition might take place in a library or, later, in the Finnish National Gallery’s Ateneum building, once it was finally built and opened in 1888. In this case, the library serves as the venue, but it is not the exhibitor. The venue itself is not the most important information; the organizer is. I hope this makes sense - thank you!