Conversation pursued by quite a few people here:
http://groups.google.com/group/versionone-users/browse_thread/thread/3db158e1c048eb86/
Either standardize goals and feature group to be N:N and filter/searchable... or create an abstract version of these call labels (or themes) and have the UI treat them like labels (or tags) on blogs. Any asset can be tagged with any 1-N labels, and any screen could be filtered on 1-N labels.
All goals and feature groups could be migrated to this structure and it would be completely flexible for any usage anywhere.
by: Kevin S. | over a year ago | User Interface
Comments
Yes - I'd really like a tagging system which covers all items including Issues. Needs to cope with multiple tags and you need a way to search for tagged items within a specific project or heirarchy. Tag Cloud anyone?
I like that Feature Groups and Goals are separate entities. Tags might be nice, but should be additive and not in replace of Goals and Feature Groups in my opinion.
An example of how I would use tags:
Suppose I created a tag for each 'role' in the user stories. Then I could find all of the stories for a particular role, export them, then take those stories to the person and ask them to review them. Or, I can review them from a perspective of that mindset. So, I could filter to all of the 'security' stories, and look at them, and get a feel for whether or not we caught everything.
Being able to slice and dice your backlog in various ways, from various perspectives is a very powerful and useful way of helping one get it populated.
Note: A single story may be told from the perspective of multiple users, so it would need to be N:N.
And that's just ONE use for tags.
Tags could conceivably replace 'goals' but only if the functionality were more reasonably implemented. The UI for goals isn't clean enough to be on-par with tags.
I think of Feature Groups and Epics as labels for groupings of backlog items. So they need to behave the same. I want to filter on Feature Groups and Epics (Epics not currently supported). Similarly, I want to prioritize from top to bottom, like Backlog Items, for Epics and Feature Groups (Feature Groups not currently supported).
I like the idea of tagging as well. I think the new release has this capability applied to regression tests but it would be nice if they could be used on stories and defects as well. This would eliminate the need to add extra fields that are only needed by specific projects.
I agree with a previous comment that this would augment feature groups and epics, not replace them. We have incorporated feature group hierarchies into our process and consider them essential.
yes please! give us tags!
Agreed, this would be very helpful for us.
Agree, being able to tag stories and epics or other things would be very useful. We often have projects that are generic and in a generic project hierarchy for the product, however certain enterprise clients will care about those and the new features key to them going live on our platform.
I would love being able to tag Backlog/Defect items. Sometimes, we have certain milestones for interacting with other departments, and it would be nice to be able to tag certain items with the milestone the correspond to. These milestones are transient and don't really work as an Epic or Feature Group.
Need this badly.
Agreed, this is sorely missing. I need to be able to quickly identify features (epics) that are budgetary in nature vs. additional items as another example. Goals may help with that if they were assignable to epics, but they aren't. In any case, tagging or labeling would offer more flexibility for different kinds of scenarios such as this.
This is definitely a missing feature in V1, tagging is common practice among applications these days. We are using work-arounds for this now, via themes and custom lists.
I'm new to V1, but to be sure, has this feature been introduced since this post, or is there an intention to introduce this in the near future?
I agree that tagging would be a very useful feature, but needs to have proper support in terms of filtering and reporting within the tool. I would also like to see tags possible at different levels (e.g. Tasks/Tests) so that a report could be generated to determine how much time a team is spending on specific type of work (e.g. automation, UI, whatever). Thanks.
TAGS are infinitely flexible and give the ability to avoid most (mis)uses of custom fields. I also want to be able to tag a bunch of objects and then search them up later.
Yes, TAGS please! We switched to VersionOne for good strategic reasons, but a lot of us miss the tagging we used to do in Jira and TFS.
Note: Feature Groups / Themes have been called Backlog Groups since the Winter 2015 release.
We do use Backlog Groups to for alternate groupings around areas of interest ... but we can still only attach a Work Item (Story/Defect/etc.) to a single Backlog Group. A many-to-many TAG would be far more flexible.
VersionOne, would you please introduce TAGs or enhance Backlog Groups to work in that way? I up-voted this year, but didn't add a column at the time, so please consider this as a fresh vote. Thank you.
Also second the ability to tag.. we need to be able to filter backlogs based on the type of work in the tickets.
Labels/Tagging was introduced in the Fall 17.3 release, here is a link to the tagging intro on the community site. https://community.versionone.com/VersionOne-Lifecycle/Product_Planner/Planning/Backlog_Page_Basics/Using_Tags#section_3