The Death of the Choice Field in SharePoint 2010?
A client asked a very sensible question to me a couple of days ago “Should we make all the choice fields that we have Managed Metadata fields?”
This lead me to doing some thinking and wondering if the Choice field is actually a dead construct in SharePoint 2010? There is so many advantages that should we really create choice fields at all?
Well I don’t really know the answer but here are some thoughts regarding the battle between Choice Fields and the new kid on the block the Managed Metadata field
Choice Field
This is what we all know as a drop down list or other similar name. Now there is more than a couple of option in creating these in SharePoint 2010. You can create a Drop-Down Menu, Radio Buttons or Checkboxes that allow multiple selections:
The various Choice Field display options available
Advantages
- A choice field exposes options more clearly than a Managed Metadata field. All of the options are visible to the user with a single click
- Works well for only a few options especially in the case of the radio buttons
- A user experience that is very familiar to end users
Disadvantages
- Cannot have a cascading list with a set of options and sub options
- If choice fields are defined on Content Types and you wish to add a choice, you must syndicate the Content Types again. Managed Metadata fields do this automatically by the very nature that they are defined from a central location
- If you wish to use choice fields in Search Refiners then you must manually configure the Managed Property and then add the option to the Refinement Panel
Managed Metadata Fields
The new Managed Metadata service Term Sets can be exposed through the Managed Metadata field construct. This allows us to associate a Term Set to a field and let the users pick from a number of options.
In addition there are various advantages in using Managed Metadata such as reuse of Terms, centralized management and other features:
The new kid on the block: Managed Metadata
Advantages
- Can be centrally defined and syndicated automatically
- Can create a cascading drop down list
- Javascript for type ahead functionality encouraging easier use
- If the field contains many options it provides a better interface in terms of type ahead matching and possible
Disadvantages
- Options are not automatically visible to the user
- There are more clicks to see the available options than for a choice field
- Different user experience than most users will be used to
Main Points to Consider
- If the choices are limited in nature and are unlikely to change then use a choice field
- If choices will change frequently and the field will be reused in multiple locations use a Managed Metadata field
- If you wish to reuse individual choice items for different fields use a Managed Metadata field where you can reuse the same Term in multiple term sets
- If you wish to expose the field or option in search refiners then consider using Managed Metadata fields, unless you want to do the extra configuration that is required
- If your users will be primarily using Office 2007/2003 then use choice fields, Managed Metadata fields will not be able to be edited from within the Office clients
Conclusion
So what is the verdict? Honestly I think that the Choice field is only really useful to be compatible for MOSS 2007 upgrades. But this post is really meant to inspire discussion so let’s hear your thoughts on the matter 
Category: General
Great post Mike,
I have a similar concern and it has to do with using lookup lists vs managed metadata. I really can’t come up with a good reason to go with managed metadata (but I did anyway). This is only for a single site (single doc library actually) and my goal is to be able to use a refinement panel. More specifically, it will have to do with stocks. There will be an sector code, industry code, sub industry,… in a clear hierarchy. 10, 1010, 101010. I have tried two methods, one splitting them all up in different managed metadata columns each going to a different term store (sector ie 10, industry group ie 1010, industry ie 101010, sub industry 10101010). I have also put them in one managed term set with a hierarchy, then made a single column allow multiple values so you can assign them all from the same set. What are your thoughts on this?
Hey Jared,
Sorry for the really,really late reply
From your comments it sounds good, I would defiantly use a Managed metadata column especially since it looks like you are creating a heirachy so it would work well.
You can also easily create a refinement option on this as well so I think that you are good to go mate.
Thanks Michal, great thoughts. I’ve been playing with the choice vs managed metadata idea myself and to be honest, the cascading capability is the clincher for me. In every engagement clients want metadata elements that relate to one another and although there isn’t true rollup just yet (you need to fudge it via CQWP) I believe this is the only option to go when building a ECM system.
Choice fields are great, but more for workflow action related / survey type elements.
Thanks again, will for sure reference you when I blog about my overall findings.
Similar to Jared’s question, would you recommend using a single term set with 3 levels to represent
” Year : Quarter : Month ” or 3 separate term sets with 1 level each?
Hey Candace,
It all depends on your requirements but in general I think that it would be easier to have one term set rather than 3.
Cheers
It is handy to use Managed Metadata that represents hierarchical data and then use it in the Metadata Navigation Hierarchy. When selecting an item in a hierarchy for a managed metadata column, all items will be shown that are tagged with the specified term or any of its descendant terms for the field associated with that hierarchy.
[...] The Death of the Choice Field in SharePoint 2010? [...]
Thanks for sharing your experiences!
Well for me there still one scenario where I have to go with choice fields. When an infopath form is required.
Infopath 2010 not support the new MMD field.
so if this is the case you have no choice.
I’ve read that you can’t use multi value taxonomy fields as search refiners. I hope this isn’t true, but if it is – then that’s another factor to consider.
Hey Andy,
Let me check on that but I was under the assumption that you can use multi taxonomy fields as search refiners…
SP Workspace also doesn’t support managed metadata. Talk about ultimate suck fest.
One more thing, choice fields don’t allow synonyms which inhibits the building of a true taxonomy.
Managed Metadata doesn’t work well with web-enabled InfoPath forms (see http://www.cleverworkarounds.com/2010/10/28/un-managed-metadata-a-couple-of-gotchas/) nor with datasheet view.
Another “surprise” with publishing site and content deployment: although managed metadata values used in content pages are well “content-deployed”, the term store is not and you must make sure (do it yourself) that the term store on the production farm has the exact same IDs than the term store used in the authoring farm.
Managed Metadata is great… but it’s still V1 in SP2010… so be careful.
Have you had any luck with Managed metadata in a SPD workflow?
I am having issues changing/using the metadata within the workflow.
I would love to see an ISV / ingenious client side dev write a control to overwrite the output styling of the MMD to represent a set of checkboxes / radio buttons (where it makes sense – that isn’t always the case). I would love to start thinking of MMD as my source of truth for all lookups, as I can a) provide synonyms for those values, b) expose them throughout my SharePoint farm, c) provide DESCRIPTIONS to define the meaning of the terms to avoid misinterpretation.
I would also lament / agree with Franck this is v1, and there is room for improvement. Main things would be: 1) I would love to make Term Store more open to other LOB’s and it can definitely use some “performance enhancements” and 2) a better story (or more stories) between test / authoring / ppe / production environments for “migrating” your terms from one environment to another
Another post that touches upon some of the comments above is at http://www.sharepointanalysthq.com/2011/06/managed-metadata-column-limitations/
Check it out!