Re: User Interface Standards for Field Labels
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 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"
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 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" > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
User Interface Standards for Field Labels
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"
