Subject: suggestion for the scheduling tool

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:08:44 -0800

Folks,

	I really like the new tools, but the pull down on the
	scheduling tool for conflicts is really cumbersome. I'd
	like to be able to just type the in the conflicts I'd
	like to avoid. Is there any reason that the tool does not
	permit this?

	Thanks,

	Dave

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:20:19 +0100

Dave,

> 	like to avoid. Is there any reason that the tool does not

Yes. The reason is typos. The pull down guarantees no typos.
That's important to make the output consistent for Marcia's use.

The good news is that the tool has a memory, so next time it will
default to the same list and you will only have to make any changes
that you want.

    Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:57:09 +0100

Hi,

> That's important to make the output consistent for Marcia's use.

Another less intrusive way to prevent typos is to have a free-form
entry field and run a small javascript snippet which validates the
entry before permitting submission.  The javascript needs to know
the list of valid WG tags, as given in the pull-down today, and then
runs through the free-form entry and flags anything that doesn't
match.  I've mentioned this to one of the developers and hope it'll
get into the next version.

> default to the same list and you will only have to make any changes

This is a nice feature.

	Henrik

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:56:02 -0800

> default to the same list and you will only have to make any changes

	Thanks. I can see the point if it turns out that typos
	are a big problem. Its not as convenient as just being
	able to type a list (or better, pick the list you
	ususally use +/- editing) and stick that into the
	conflicts, but I can see the utility. 

	Dave

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:57:22 -0800

> get into the next version.

	Thanks.

> > default to the same list and you will only have to make any changes
	
	Will definitely help.

	Dave

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:11:27 -0500

>>>>> "Henrik" == Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]> writes:

    Henrik> Hi, on 2006-02-12 10:20 Brian E Carpenter said the
    Henrik> following:
    >>> scheduling tool for conflicts is really cumbersome. I'd like
    >>> to be able to just type the in the conflicts I'd like to
    >>> avoid. Is there any reason that the tool does not permit this?

    Henrik> Another less intrusive way to prevent typos is to have a
    Henrik> free-form entry field and run a small javascript snippet
    Henrik> which validates the entry before permitting submission.
    Henrik> The javascript needs to know the list of valid WG tags, as
    Henrik> given in the pull-down today, and then runs through the
    Henrik> free-form entry and flags anything that doesn't match.
    Henrik> I've mentioned this to one of the developers and hope
    Henrik> it'll get into the next version.

If you do this make sure it still works without javascript, please.
It seems like you'd want server side validation anyway if you care
about data quality.  I do agree that Javascript would provide a better
client experience if enabled.

--Sam

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:06:24 +0000

> default to the same list and you will only have to make any changes

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had problems deleting a WG from the 
beginning/middle of the list, as the tool only allows deletion of the 
last entry.
So if one has conflicts with A, B and C, one has to delete C, delete B 
and then add C again.

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:13:07 -0800

> So if one has conflicts with A, B and C, one has to delete C, delete B 

What interface would you have the IETF spend valuable resources on,
in order to convey potential meeting conflicts to the scheduler?

There are ~129 WGs spread over 8 areas. 
That doesn't account for BOFs of course.
This is too many choices for a check-box interface.
Use Javascript text-box validation instead and people complain
that they won't turn on Javascript in their browser.

I'm quite happy enough with this API, especially given the
number of hours per year I need to spend using it. (1?)
IMO, tool resources should be spent elsewhere.

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:50:02 -0800

Andy Bierman wrote:
>> So if one has conflicts with A, B and C, one has to delete C, delete 
>> B and then add C again.
>
> There are ~129 WGs spread over 8 areas. That doesn't account for BOFs 
> of course.

Okay -- I do have one enhancement request.
Between the time I first entered input, and just now,
when I updated the request,  the "entmib" WG has
changed status from current to concluded.  Now the
same remembered input causes the tool to barf when
it is re-entered.

If you are going to go to the trouble of forcing valid input
with the UI, then remember to check the string you are
about to generate for the initial value, and just drop any
strings that aren't in the 'current WG' list anymore.

> Andy

thanks,
Andy

---

From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:23:45 +0100

> IMO, tool resources should be spent elsewhere.

Firefox and safari allows you to click on the dropdown box and then type
the item you want to select. knowing this, I find the dropdown box just
fine for this task.

Love