I've never really understood the database name vs. field label discrepancy either, except in cases where you have different fields with the same name like the Notes field and Work Info Notes fields. Perhaps the discrepancy is also reasonable if db names have field length limits that labels do not have to have. It WOULD be nice if BMC limited the number of fields for which this discrepancy exists. It's challenging enough for me as a technical person to make sense of this, and it *does* confuse end users!
I have not yet had the chance to look at 8.1, but I know that in 7.6.04, the lack of consistency in how things are done is troublesome. Our users already resist learning new things and they hate having to learn how to do the same basic task (such as adding a customer or Prod Cat) one way in Incident Management and a completely different way in Change or Problem Management. Please, BMC, consider coming up with an "application standard" way of doing tasks that are common across modules and then doing consistency testing to make sure those things are in fact accomplished in the same way. Natalie Stroud ARS-ITSM Reporting Specialist SAIC @Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM USA nkst...@sandia.gov ITSM 7.6.04 SP2 - Windows Server 2008 - SQL Server 2008 ________________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] on behalf of SUBSCRIBE ARSLIST theReel [tony.r...@bt.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:13 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: [EXTERNAL] Whats with the Classification field labels in 8.1 Hi Guys, Time to let off some steam. Just having a look a the classification tab that has been added to the Best Practice View of Incidents in 8.1. For the Operational Categorization Tier 1 - 3 and Product categorization Tier 1-3 fields the display labels of the fields have been hidden behind other fields and then separate text fields added where the labels would have normaly been. Does anyone have any idea why on earth this has been done and why the labels are not visible as normal? The product Name, Model, Manufacture labels are all laid out as normal. This will affect users when they try to do an avanced search and click on the field label expecting it to be added to the search bar but it will not work. Also this highlights a bug of mine and many of my users - the name of the actual field is ''Product Categorization Tier 1" but the label is Tier 1. Which means when users unfamilar with the field names try to do a search, report, filter or look in the audit log they cant find the fields they want as the labels are different. My favourite one is the "Problem coordinator" field which shows up as the "Assignee Pblm Mgr" in the audit log. As I write/rant I think I know why it has been done in the incident form - it is for asthectic reasons - i.e it doesnt look pretty having a list of long labels: Product Categorization Tier 1 Product Categorization Tier 2 Product Categorization Tier 3 It might not look pretty but at least the usability would have been better! Why not shorten to Product Cat Tier 1. I notice in the change module they have named the fields Tier 1 - 3. But then most things seem to be done differently accross the modules. eg. how the customer is selected is wildly different in Incident and change. Note to any BMC readers: Please try to keep labels, Db names and visble labels the same Please get the change/incident/problem teams to look at the other modules and keep them some way similar at least in the end users eyes. And breathe. Sorry about that folks, I just had to get it off my chest. Tony _______________________________________________________________________________ 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"
