The workflow I was imagining in my proposal was the one I sketched
out below. So I don't think the issue is usability, it's a matter of
how long it would take to implement the change.
Either way, it makes most sense to go with Dan's proposal for Preview
and we can revisit the issue with more dogfood feedback.
Thx Bryan,
Mimi
On May 17, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Bryan Stearns wrote:
You got it wrong, but corrected yourself (see the end, below)...
Mimi Yin wrote:
[snip]
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
(note: After Priss enters "6/1/07" & "8:00 PM", the end time is
"6/1/07" "9:00 PM", because we default to 1-hour events.)
Ends: June 1, 2007 at 2:00AM
2. Chandler does:
Starts: June 1, 2007 at 8:00PM
Ends: June 1, 2007 at 2:00AM ?
yes.
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
Nope (as you say below): the original end time (that is, the time
before Priscilla entered the 'bad' 2:00 AM) was "9:00 PM", so what
Chandler restores is "6/3/07" "9:00 PM"... my point is that
Pricilla will probably be just as confused that her "2:00 AM" went
away.
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
