Comments on: Feedback on new request screen

By: Petr

Petr — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:24:06 +0000

I find this screen (Request: New) very confusing, even for experienced user. In my opinion, it does have the right elements (features) – but they are implemented in user “unfriendly” way.

Example 1: I am about to enter a new request, for which I do not remeber name, nor ID – therefore I start typing some name, which I think is right – a promissing shortlist displays but suddenly, a number shows up and jumps in the ‘Regest type’ field and I do not know whether it corresponds with the name …

Example 2: I decide to scroll down trough the list of available processes to find THE ONE – I see categories and within each category I see requests sorted by alphabet – fine. However, I cannot sort it by alphabet regardless of the category – uff.

Here is what is suggest:

1/ List of recent / most used on top (req ID in the brackets)
2/ Searching by name
3/ Show more options control (something, which just shows hidden part of the screen, so nothing like a link to search screen, which is contacting server and waits for response
In this section: multiple search criteria (name, category, security level, role, color, manager, mail merge, etc.)
4/ Results set / section with option to sort by any column

What do you think?

By: Maarten Tigchelaar

Maarten Tigchelaar — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:31:37 +0000

Additional note. The start of a procesflow should be integrated into this screen as well. Now users have to click on a button to see the available procesflow options. Most users don’t know the difference between a single request or a proces flow.

By: Shawn Gamble

Shawn Gamble — Tue, 25 May 2010 13:36:06 +0000

I agree With Christian about being able to Expand and Collapse the workflow groups. Infact I have Enhancement request 34.517.085 created for this specific task.
In my Environment I have some groups that have 200 plus Workflow it is a pain in the butt to scroll through pages of workflow to get to the one your want. some people just would like to collapse Large groups that they know they have no interest in using.

By: Christian Ibetsberger

Christian Ibetsberger — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:48:47 +0000

Additional note to my idea above: It a certain (>10) number of requests is shown it would be more efficient to be able to ‘expand’ a specific request group to show all requests. It is not neccessary to to show all requests of all categories.
So I would see all requests groups and all f.e. 30 recently used requests and I could expand the 1 group I m interested in to pick a request that was not recently used.

By: Christian Ibetsberger

Christian Ibetsberger — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:29:13 +0000

We also used the IDs to create a sort order other than alphabetical. Requests for general purposes are always on top, those for specific purposes are on bottom of each category. Sometimes the sort order also follows phases, for example in the HR application prozess.

We do not miss the IDs other than for that purpose, since it is always possible to create a request by entering the ID if it is known or noted on a document.

The request screen would look ‘nicer’ if the colours would be shown again (I m a visual user) – even if its of no use otherwise. by different colours it would be easier to distinguish the categories when scrolling.

In the recent used pane there is no reference to the category and the order of the entries changes according to the used requests. Again a color ‘code’ might help spotting right request or be a ‘reference’ the color of a category.

For customers with less than 50 requests, two columns would be way easier (no scrolling). For customers with more than 50 requests I wonder how they manage with the short request descriptions. The description field should be longer.

If I had to programm this I guess would simply have made a setting for the number of recently used request you wanna see, for example 20. And then show those 20 in two columns with categories, and a button to show all instead in the same layout. That way, users can choose to see recent 10, 20, 50 (what fits on one screen or even all). The more recently used requests you choose, the less will the position/order of the requests change.

By: Danny Bonthuis

Danny Bonthuis — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:07:57 +0000

The only thing that I really like about the request screen is the top ten, that is a big improvement…but I miss the ID’s. and the list of requests is now really long so a lot of scrolling and searching….

After 6 hours of working actively in 242 I can still stand by my innitial thoughts and the feedback given by customers during the Controlled Release faze of release 241 where this screen was introduced.

By: Edgar Wieringa

Edgar Wieringa — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:26:24 +0000

For those of you who haven't noticed yet, I have replied to all your valuable views in this new post.

By: Menno Verbon

Menno Verbon — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:02:36 +0000

It’s a horror. We now have to add the ID’s in the description field in order for people to work with requests. We’ve been using the id’s in our company for over 5 (FIVE) years and everybody knows them. I a lot of screen you have to enter the id’s so why has it been hidden.
It’s a shame that Exact do NOT think about existing customers and installations. A good developer would have made this an optional choise. In that case everybody would be happy. Now we have NO choice and have been FORCED this functionality.

By: Quirijn Vermeulen

Quirijn Vermeulen — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:56:15 +0000

Since the verdict seems to be split between people who want to see the ID and people who do not want to see the ID, why not make it an option to show the ID under the settings. That way people get the decision if they want to see the ID’s (and perhaps sort on them) or whether they do not want to see the ID’s and sort alphabetically within the request groups.

It may be more work to implement that way, but it leads to a screen with more functionality that will be pleasing to work with for most people and you give the user control.

By: Scott Leete

Scott Leete — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:14:03 +0000

The absence of the request ID makes it very difficult to determine a range of requests to export via “Request Type” XML. It would be nice if the request id was at least display in the workflow definition maintenance screen, WflRequestTypes.aspx