Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?
If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed? -David On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > I like the idea and have already suggested > http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp > http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz) > > Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features > before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came > along... > http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm > > Jacques > > From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[email protected]> >> Hi Hans: >> >> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if >> they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who >> decides basic vs. full featured? >> >> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good >> idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" >> you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record >> functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed >> addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me! >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> Ruth >> >> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality >>> which can be really overwhelming. >>> >>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels: >>> >>> for example: >>> 1. beginner >>> 2. intermediate >>> 3. full feature. >>> >>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however >>> the system will be fully functional. >>> >>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything.. >>> >>> And the full feature will show everything what is there. >>> >>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> > >
