Hi,

It is bold as it can be "Configured" to be mandatory (On Submit) through
Incident Rules - I guess there should have been some additional workflow
that sets the label font when it is enabled/disabled  in Configuration ...
(easy enhancement) 

 

  _____  

 

Kind Regards,

 

Carl Wilson

 

http://www.missingpiecessoftware.com/

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller
Sent: 26 September 2013 20:36
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: User Interface Standards for Field Labels

 

** 

This one annoys my users too.  I thought by default service was required?  I
could have sworn I had to turn it off before we could submit a CRQ and
probably Incident (even though we are not using Incident yet).  Maybe it is
turned on in the SSI build?

 

Another one is we require the Change Reason in Change which is similar
configuration.  This field does not become bold and also annoys my users.
We extended the required fields a little bit on Change so I just ended up
creating an AL that will bold/unbold where appropriate.  I guess it is a
good day if that is the biggest issue users can find.

 

Jason

 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Brent Goodman <rem...@rowshay.com> wrote:

On the Incident Management module, the field called 'Service*+' is in bold.
Based off of BMCs user interface standards for field labels, this field is a
required field when submitting a ticket.

Out of the box, and in all our customer installations, this field is not
required. This seems to contradict BMCs standards, and off their core
product. Does anyone know the reason why this field is flagged as bold and
not just a standard looking field like the others.

One of my large customers has singled out this field and is looking for
clarification and asking to have it changed.

I know that you can go into the configuration and set the "Require Service
CI Related On Submit", which then makes the field required.

If this value is set to "No" then OOB workflow should be adjusting the look
of the field in order to maintain the interface standards defined.

Does anyone have any idea why the user interface standards are not always
followed by OOB items.

Thanks,
Brent...

Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________
___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"

 

_ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ 


_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"

Reply via email to