Structure Competence Lists by Competence Categories

1 Initial Problem

When there are lots of competences for a course or in the view "Selected Competences" the list gets very long and is not sorted well. When spider web graphs are shown partially random competences are put together or next to each other.

2 Conceptual Summary

If more than one competence from the same "parent" competence category is shown in the same list (course > competences, ... , "selected competences"), such comptences should be aggregated according to their competence category to form meaningful clusters / blocks in theses lists. This should affect spider web diagrams etc. as well.

The result of this change will be, that spider web diagrams (or whatever they might morph to) will no longer place potentially random competences next to each other.

"Selectable" vs non-selectable categories
Some administrators might use the "Selectable" option of competence categroies to form meaningful clusters of competences (with lots of sub-categories that are simply "drawers with letters on them". The challegnge is to determine a good "parent" category.
In this case the aggregation respect whether the "parent" competence category is "selectable" or not and find the next "Selectable" competence category above the competence.

Competence Results Views
The competence results views such as Test > Competences etc. should also repsect this agrregation / grouping behaviour. (extra feature request pages necessary?)

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

Personal Desktop > Achievements > Competences > Selected Competences
Course > Competences > Show
Group > Competences > Show
Test > Results > Competences
Survey > Results > Competences

3.2 User Interface Details

{For each of these views please list all user interface elements that should be modified, added or removed. Please provide the textual appearance of the UI elements and their interactive behaviour.}

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

{If the proposal introduces any completely new user interface elements, you might consult UI Kitchen Sink in order to find the necessary information to propose new UI-Concepts. Note that any maintainer might gladly assist you with this.}

4 Technical Information

{The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues.}

5 Contact

• Author of the Request: Marko Glaubitz
• Maintainer: {Please add your name before applying for an initial workshop or a Jour Fixe meeting.}
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

6 Funding

If you are interest in funding this feature, please add your name and institution to this list.

• …

7 Discussion

8 Implementation

{The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible.}

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

• {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.