On May 17, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Bryan Stearns wrote:
OK, we'll go with Dan's suggestion.
Great
The new case is that a validly-formatted end time could get a "?",
if (when combined with the end date field) it doesn't happen to be
at or before the start date/time.
In the situation that spawned this bug, Priscilla might then try to
fix the problem by editing the end date. The new confusing thing is
that when finished editing the date field, the original value in
the time field would be reloaded there, replacing her edited value
and the "?" - and I'd bet she'd file another bug saying that that
was a surprise (and she'd be right).
Just so I understand (because I think I'm still missing something),
is this what you're describing:
1. Priss enters the following:
Starts: June 1, 2007 at 8:00PM
Ends: June 1, 2007 at 2:00AM
2. Chandler does:
Starts: June 1, 2007 at 8:00PM
Ends: June 1, 2007 at 2:00AM ?
3. Priscilla fixes the end-date:
Starts: June 1, 2007 at 8:00PM
Ends: June 2, 2007 at 2:00AM ?
4. Chandler restores original end-time
Starts: June 1, 2007 at 8:00PM
Ends: June 3, 2007 at 2:00AM
That feels like the right workflow for me.
Or are you saying that it would restore the end-time that was in the
end-time field before Priss did step #1 (e.g. 9:00PM). If that's
true, I can see how it would be extra work to treat "properly
formatted date/times that are nevertheless wrong" differently from
date/times that are wrong because they are improperly formatted.
Thx, Mimi
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
