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
>
>
>
