Would it be better to list plugins by feature ontology?

imagej

#1

It seems the current bias is to consolidate plugins under update site names, but this is making Fiji increasingly more difficult to use, as the names of the update sites have no correlation with the plugins they contain, and update sites will often have multiple plugin types, and multiple update sites will have the same plugin type, resulting in a giant, obfuscated plugin menu.

I’m wondering if it would not be much better to have a set of standardized, hierarchical ontology rules (such as the category list on the FIJI wiki page) to organize plugins, and ask developers to list their plugins under these names. That way, I would look for a watershed algorithm under “segmentation”, rather than MorphoLibJ, and the morphological filters in MorphoLibJ would be listed under a “filters” category along with things like Beat’s Anisotropic diffusion.

I also think this would greatly increase adoption of new plugins, as lay-people will see new plugins listed under the main function they perform (i.e. registration, convolution, filtering, transformation, etc.) so users will already have an idea what the plugin is supposed to do based on its category.

I know this would take some coordination and poking people, but it would be trivial for developers to implement, as it simply requires a two second modification to the config file. It also feels like if this current trend continues, there will be hundreds of update sites, resulting in a mile long plugin menu. By that time, there will be that much more inertia to overcome to change anything.

Just my own two cents,
Ben Smith


#2

I think it’s a great idea !
It could be worth listing it as an enhancement issue somewhere in GitHub @imagejan @ctrueden @frauzufall