On 27/11/12 16:00, Olemis Lang wrote:
On 11/23/12, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Or something like that. So, apart from a clear idea of how we clearly
mark fields as edited, are there any other holes in this? It is also
worth considering if this fits with the current mechanisms for guarding
against conflicts dues to concurrent edits.
Yes. I notice a gap here (unless I'm missing something ...) , and it
is related to ticket workflow . Inline edits have to pass through
workflow . Ideally we could always force `leave` action on in place
edits but if Modify Ticket section won't be there then what shall we
do ?
I wouldn't say that changes to the ticket details imply a change of
ticket status within the workflow so I was hoping to leave this as a
separate proposal.
However, it does seem worthy of comment as there are a few
inconsistencies. For example, it would be nice to be able to change the
"assigned to" user but the ability to do that is dependent on workflow
too. Meanwhile "reported by" could be considered an in-place edit. A
similar thing happens with the status and ticket type fields that are
close together. The attempts to change the workflow related items would
probably have to either send you to the "Action" control or present you
with the control somehow.
At this point I really have to see what those with more knowledge of ui
design will come up with though.
Cheers,
Gary
