The Work Effort application is fine as it is - we don't need any customizations. I'm thinking more along the lines of the work I did in Asset Maintenance a year ago - just go through it and clean it up a little, makes things a little easier to understand, etc...
It will still be the same application, just easier to use. -Adrian --- On Fri, 7/10/09, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote: > From: David E Jones <d...@me.com> > Subject: Re: Work Effort UI work > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 2:03 PM > > On Jul 10, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: > > > We just rolled out the Work Effort component where I > work, and users are complaining about the UI - it's > confusing and a little too "techie." I'd like to start > working on making it more user-friendly. Don't freak out - > I'm not going to make any major changes, I'll just clean up > the labels a little and maybe re-arrange a few things. > > > > If anyone has any suggestions, or if your users have > any suggestions, please share them with me. > > I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that the > priorities for the "base applications" (in the components in > the ofbiz/applications directory) are: > > 1. easy to customize and reuse development artifacts > 2. easy to use > > In other words, decisions to make it easier to use are > secondary to keeping/making it easy to customize. > > The solution for the ease of use is to create something > that is organized around roles/actors or business processes, > instead of around the data model as the base applications > are (so that they will be easier to customize and reuse). > > To do this you might want to consider creating a > specialpurpose application, like Hans did with the project > stuff based on WorkEffort, and then reuse as much as > possible from the WorkEffort app and component but feel free > to change whatever you want. You can bootstrap this by doing > something similar to the "ecomclone" webapp so it is exactly > like the workeffort webapp, and then override screens, > menus, forms, etc, etc as needed. > > -David > > >