Davor, Mimi, and Jeffrey, Thank you for your advice. I implemented the second option by your advice, with default behavior of one week report.
As for Mimi's thoughts, we have to see what kind of summaries the various reports will yield. Maybe indeed the monthly report will be so detailed that we introduce kind of granularity parameter. Another point, that Jeffrey and I discussed and that may be related to granularity, was whether users are interested in the summary of what happened from the start point to the end point, or in some major steps in between. Consider for instance, reporting on achievements. Last week the status of a certain item was DONE, then she changed it to NOW, but now it's DONE again, should we report on that? or nothing happened in terms of the report, if we view it as a delta between two snapshots start-point and end-point. Should we use the same granularity policy for cases of LATER->NOW->LATER, or NOW->DONE->LATER->NOW->DONE->NOW? On 7/11/07, Jeffrey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Mimi, > Backing up a second, what are some use cases for these different time > parameters? I think this is an interesting way to think about how (in > the future) reports for different time parameters might be different. > > One is simply, the user defines the report around the amount of time > it's been since they did their last review. > > A second might be that so much happened in the last 48 hours, you feel > like you need to do an overview to make sure you didn't drop anything. I'm hoping Vera can make the default behavior be to report since the run date of the most recent report in a collection (maybe falling back to 1 week if there haven't been any reports in the current collection). Sincerely, Jeffrey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
