I agree Natalie and that brings me to my other problem with BMC going with Flash embedded objects. All this talk about optimizing the mid tier for performance and they go with Flash?? OK terrific.
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Stroud, Natalie K Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Amen, Claire! We just rolled out with ITSM 7.6.04 about 2 weeks ago and we decided to go with the Best Practice view precisely because the Classic view is being deprecated. Our service desk analysts are already complaining that their hands hurt because of all the extra clicking. As far as our users are concerned, they don't care how nice and pretty and "clean" the screen looks - they want to be able to get to the information they need in the most efficient manner possible even if it means their screen looks a bit cluttered. Natalie Stroud Remedy Tester Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), contractor to Sandia National Labs Albuquerque, NM (505)844-7983 nkst...@sandia.gov <mailto:nkst...@sandia.gov> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Sanford, Claire Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** I was going to ask the same question. My reason is that my Support center staff do not need to see open tickets. They put in about 90 tickets per day per person. They have to put a ticket in for every call. If they have to do all that extra clicking, it takes time. I hate the fact that the Classic View forms are being deprecated. For people working the tickets, the "best" practice view may be fine, but for entering a ticket and quickly verifying the info, it is not quick or easy. So, if my staff just open the form up and create a ticket without going through the click here, click here and finally click here process... will they lose any functionality? I think the designers of the views should have spent a day in a busy support center. ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Request Console vs. Direct Entry ** Are you talking about the OOB requester console that comes with Service Desk or the Service Request Management module? Either way, there is some functionality lost such as being able to see the "Open tickets" table. It all depends on what the requirement is. If all your users want to do is enter a request and forget about it, then having a "direct entry form" as you call it should be fine. Anything else, go with the requester console. I guess the question is... why don't you want to use the OOB entry form and why do you want to use the direct entry form? -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Kathy Morris Sent: Wed 8/10/2011 5:43 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: SRM: Request Console vs. Direct Entry Hi, If we enter the request via a direct entry form versus the request console, what functionality do I lose? Am I able to redirect surveys to the direct entry form or the work order form? Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________ _______ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" ________________________________ This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ ********************************************************************** This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
