That's still not as bad as having the Y2K Compliant? field in the Asset forms. Still.
Rick On Jul 1, 2014 9:29 AM, "Joe D'Souza" <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > This form has a all eggs in one basket kind of a design which I personally > do not think is quite as useful as if the data was separated a little. > > > > What I mean is this one form has all this information: > > 1) Only up to 3 Credit Cards > > 2) Only up to 3 Hotels > > 3) Only up to 3 Airlines > > 4) Only up to 3 Rental cars (already see my point?) > > 5) Obsolete information like if you prefer an airline that allows > smoking (what airline does that these days anywhere in the world for over a > decade now?). This field should have been hidden if not deprecated. > > > > More important is that all this information is collected in one record – I > do not think its quite a flexible design for that. > > > > First off one is limited to just 3 credit cards, hotels, airlines and > rental car options, when in reality, there could be more. > > > > Secondly, I know many frequent business travelers who use a separate > credit card for hotels, airlines and sometimes even rental cars – cards > issued by each of these travel companies. Which means while booking Hotel 1 > one might need to use a specific credit card, while hotel 2 another > specific card. Same goes for airlines and rental cars. > > > > It might have been much better to have separated each hotel, rental car > and airline to a record and then connect them all to a parent record. And > have alternate credit card(s) for each of those records just in case the > primary one intended for that specific use is out of balance or has expired > or lost or stolen. Not that anyone uses this form that I know of, but…... > > > > Joe > _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"
