Hi Peter, thanks a lot for the clarification (and sorry for delayed reply).

Understood -- some of this is already on our roadmap (like having different configurations for different issue types). When it comes to visuals, we'll need to make some decisions, which I hope you will like.

Can you expand a little about what in particular you don't like about the way groups are currently displayed? They look and work similar to groups in MS Project and other Gantt tools. I understand that a box is more visual, so is that it? Or is there anything else?

Thanks!
Igor

Yes, currently we don't use the grouping functionality as it is too hard to read.
Yes, it would be great if one would have such a visualization functionality.

If you remember, I wrote in the Google Forum the idea to switch the visualization per issue type.
The reason for that is, that we treat our issue types differently.
• ‘S’ stands for example for a digital service which we want to realize. A service has a Confluence spec, but has a wide scope which shall not appear on the Gantt
• ‘F’ stands for feature or a release to the customer. There the different activities in the different domains are planned and synchronized.
• We have also milestones as issue types which are linked with ‘has to be done before’ links with the other issues.
That’s why we’d like to configure if an issue type should
• Not appear on the Gantt
• Appear as a grouping element including color. Similar as today, but we don’t like the appearance of the existing grouping visualization. The color per issue type for a rectangular should be selectable.
• Appear as mile stones. We share the mile stone elements in different structures. It should not be necessary to switch them for each structure individually.
I don’t remember the other my post on the Google Groups any more :-)

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your suggestion. (I downloaded the picture.)

So, if I got it right, you have parent issues not converted into groups, and so they are displayed as ordinary tasks on the Gantt chart. You are suggesting to somehow highlight such issues with their children (for example, with a rectangular background, as on your picture). Is that correct? How does issue type come into play?

Thanks,
Igor