On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
>
>> I install 1.3.36 just over a week ago and the client tested for 3
>> days. I then installed
>> 1.3.37 on Monday. After testing last week the client has decided not to
>> upgrade at this time.
>>
>
> That's unfortunate because we think 1.3.36 and .37 are far more stable
> than 1.2 ever was, from a technical (accounting) perspective - I mean, 1.3
> needs a lot less hand-holding than 1.2 ever needed. On the other hand, it
> opens the opportunity for the client to upgrade from 1.2 directly to 1.4,
> later this year or at the beginning of next year.
>
> The major problem is when reviewing and updating transactions from the
>> trial balance. The return
>> behaviour is inconsistent.
>>
>> One of the workflows is:
>> - Trial Balance
>> - Asset Account
>> - Do work
>> - Not returned to the specific Asset Account but a generic "All
>> Asset Account"
>>
>
I don't understand what you mean. What work are you doing? In most cases,
when you enter a transaction or invoice, you are going to be returned to
that screen in 1.3. This does break some 1.2 workflows but the problem is
that what would happen in 1.2 is that you'd print and forget to post. In
1.3, you have to post before you can print, so we have to drop back at the
same screen.
>
>> Another
>> - Trial Balance
>> - Expense Account
>> - Do work
>> - Not returned to the Expense Account but left at the form
>> leading to confusion whether
>> the work was posted or not.
>>
>
If you see a print button, it has posted. If you see a "Post as Saved"
button it has been saved but not posted yet.
>
>> While acknowledging that this can be worked around they are not willing
>> to deal with the confusion
>> and loss of productivity associated with this behaviour.
>>
>
> Ok. Thanks for that. Could you file bug reports for these with a short
> list of steps to reproduce the behaviour? The bugs can be filed at
> https://sourceforge.net/p/ledger-smb/bugs/ ; as you'll understand, filing
> bugs helps to get your (client's) issues resolved in a (the) next release.
>
>
>> Other complaints:
>> - Inactive clients and vendors appear in pick lists
>>
> Ok. A few questions: did these inactive customers/vendors appear in the
> pick lists on 1.2 as well ? If not, have you checked that the customer
> accounts have end-dates filled in in the "Account" screen that are before
> the posting date of the transaction being posted?
>
Ok, I assume you mean the list is not filtering by start/end date of the
entity credit account? This should be looked into. Let's file a bug
report on it.
>
>
>> - pick lists missing from many report submission forms
>> where they were before (AR/AP etc)
>>
> Actually, it's too bad that you're telling us this now that the client
> already decided not to make the move: the dropdown are actually there. You
> just don't see them, because they need to be explicitly enabled.If you go
> to the screen System -> Defaults and set the value "Max per dropdown" from
> <empty> to a numeric value, say 500, then you will see a dropdown appear in
> the AR/AP screens.
>
Additionally this is a search field. The default has changed as to
whether to show a search field or a dropdown list. Long-run we want to
replace this with some sort of a filtering select Javascript widget.
Now if this is showing unexpected results, please file a bug report.
>
>
>> - Cash Receipt page is extremely confusing
>>
> Ok. I'm not familiar with the 1.2 screen, but it's been my understanding
> that the current screen has been inherited from 1.2? Could you provide me
> with a screenshot of the 1.2 screen, just for my reference?
>
Nope. The 1.2 screen was totally different. The 1.3 screen was designed
by a contributor to overcome many limitations of the 1.2 screen. For
example, it handles overpayments, early payment discounts, and more that
the old workflow was less prepared to deal with. The interface could
probably be made a little more self-documenting, but having worked with
both, I think the 1.3 workflow is easier and more productive once you get
used to it. There is probably room for improvement here though.
This being said, if you want something closer to the 1.2 workflow, use
Cash/Vouchers/Payments (or Receipts). This has the added benefit of being
subject to separation of duties as well.
>
>> - what purpose do the fields at the top right fulfil?
>
> Is this question - which I'm about to answer now - really a reason not to
> migrate? or did they simply not feel comfortable for other reasons (maybe
> your 1.3.36 install experience and reporting issues?) and decided to name
> this one as well?
>
>
>> They are willing to deal with these issues
>>
> Ah. Ok. So, I'm interpreting the last issue incorrectly as a reason not to
> migrate? ok.
>
>
>
>> A very minor issue that the users see as huge
>> - link to return to the trial balance at top of the accounts
>> pages is missing
>>
> As I don't have 1.2 experience, could you explain on which screen this
> link would be and what it would take one to?
>
As long as you don't disable the back button that's a workaround. To be
honest, if this is a big deal, my recommendation actually would be to wait
for 1.4 and see 1.3 as a way of looking at workflow issues they have.
Here's why:
In 1.3 and earlier, the reporting code is somewhat brittle. I doubt we
ever intended to remove that link but it's hard to make changes anywhere
there without breaking something. The reporting code in 1.4 was fully
redesigned and it provides a canonical method for managing frequently used
reports. In essence, a report is given a URL and a permalink (with a
specified format, even, so you can specify that you want html, pdf, csv, or
ods). This can be opened in a new tab or window and refreshed, copied and
emailed out to others in the organization (who will be prompted to log in
if they haven't already, when accessing it), placed on a web page as a
link, etc. This gives you a lot of freedom in managing these sorts of
issues.
It is also much easier to write reports for 1.4.
>
>
> So, summarizing: if the two workflows you mention are fixed soon, then
> they see no problem in migrating? Or are there other issues to be
> addressed? If so, I think it's practical we know about them, because we
> could possibly address them in one release - hopefully resolving all
> blocking issues at once, preventing this from becoming a dragging process.
>
>
> Thanks again for sharing your experience!
>
Agreed.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
>
>
> --
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
> Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Android apps run on BlackBerry 10
> Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps.
> Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more.
> Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience. Start now.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Ledger-smb-users mailing list
> Ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
>
>
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android apps run on BlackBerry 10
Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps.
Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more.
Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience. Start now.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-users mailing list
Ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
