If they are bundling something as a part of the application - that even has spreadsheets for foundation data loads etc., they might as well plan it well enough to make it useful should some customer somewhere feels the need to use it.. Currently, even if one plans to use it, they might not able to without tweaking its design & creating supporting child forms to add additional travel related information.
Cheers Joe -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel Sender Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Not so important RANT: CTM:PeopleTravelProfile data could be better organized.. Good Point! .... I thought they were saving it for Y3K Joel Joel Sender [email protected] 310.829.5552 -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grooms, Frederick W Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Not so important RANT: CTM:PeopleTravelProfile data could be better organized.. Maybe they were planning on re-using the Y2K field as a Unix 2038 field? ;) Fred -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 11:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Not so important RANT: CTM:PeopleTravelProfile data could be better organized.. ** That's still not as bad as having the Y2K Compliant? field in the Asset forms. Still. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe D'Souza Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 11:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Not so important RANT: CTM:PeopleTravelProfile data could be better organized.. ** 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 ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ 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"
