Add an optional short name field to model objects
Matthew Palkowski
Many applications are commonly referred to by business users by acronyms or other shorthand handle. Currently, there is not a convenient place to put this information within the model object. If you want this shorthand handle to be searchable, then it must be added to the Name field, which leads to unnecessary clutter on the object within the model.
A similar structure is in place for Technology selections (i.e. Amazon Web Services has a short name of AWS, and can be searched for using the key 'AWS').
Further, when an object is reduced in size such that the full name cannot be displayed, it seems like an intuitive step to instead of truncating the base name instead display the short name instead.
C
Chris Wash
I had a similar request I sent in for "aliases" on model objects. Ideally I could add more than one Alias to a model object but then select to display it in any particular diagram. The "Shorthand" is one instance of the broader use case for these. Sometimes I would want a view that is longer (not shorter) for business users vs the canonical name, or sometimes I would want a Jargon-y name to be tracked for searching so that someone could search the model and find it, but see more information in context of it being an alias.
Here was my original writeup:
> It would be nice to have the ability to add Aliased names to a particular model object. Here's what I am thinking... Almost always I want to display a canonical, engineering-focused name for a particular object in a diagram. But for some diagrams, I want a more simplified or commonly used or jargon-y named used for the component. So a way to track these, and potentially over ride the display name with the alias would help a lot. Additionally it would be good to have a way to track these kinds of names with the model objects so if someone was looking for what that thing they overheard someone else talking about might mean, it would show up in IcePanel's object search. I've found myself putting AKA's in the description on a few different items, so I think that would be a valuable thing to free up the description for a better overall description. But getting back to the original idea, I think not being able to show diagrams that have these more common/jargon names is limiting me from creating these more focused views of our model for particular business units and simplified views for newcomers. I realized I could create separate model objects for abstractions, but that feels wrong.