principal
nivel superior
enviar artículo
buscar
administrar
acerca de ...
rdf
rss
main
|
 Posted by Edgar J. Becerra-Bertram on Wednesday November 28, @12:45AM el 2007
from the dept.
Dear Gunnar:
I just loged in to the plenary 2 page and I notice several things,
1) The changes to the questions David sent in the new version of the questionnaire, have NOT been implemented.
2) The text of the opening page is not complete. It's missing one complete sentence.
3) The welcoming message after login-in, is incomplete. I suggest changing it from "Welcome, Edgar J. Becerra-Bertram. You have successfully identified." to "Welcome, Edgar J. Becerra-Bertram. You have successfully loged-in." [The word "identified" sounds too much like a Big Brother situation.]
4) Question 4 reads "Select from the following list the category that best describes your work", which suggests that they mark only one option. The system should validate that only one is being chosen. I suggest that when they mark any option, the system should unmark any previously marked option. Actually, please notice that in the new version, the wording explicitly states that only one be chosen: "Select from the following list, one category that best describes where you work:"
Thanks. Best regards, Edgar abuelo
<
Urgente: Arreglar Plenary 2
|
Nueva versión del 2nd Announcement
>
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Plenary 2: Not ready?
by Gunnar on Wednesday November 28, @08:06AM
|
Hi,
The requested changes are ready. I just have to answer to the following details:The last set of changes was sent to this system at 8:30AM (Mexican time) yesterday. I do feel unacceptable the pressure and the tone it was requested from me. I was really worried (even if you might have failed to notice so) of having missed something important in my work during the past weekend - Which covered thoroughly (with long reports and all) all the points I had pending. Yesterday I was not even able to open my mail (and, again, I know the various problems I have in handling my personal life are nothing but my personal responsability), but I really fail to find any important delays in my work so far which warrant such displays of, I cannot find a different word for it, panic as if I were such an irresponsable person.
Of course, I recognize, respect and acknowledge your -and Marcela's- role, both in the ICME and in any other aspect regarding my work, but I have to insist on treating each other with due respect nonetheless. If I tell you, at 12 AM, I am unavailable get online and work at the moment, and if I commit myself to having the results ready 12 hours later at most, I surely don't expect another phone call reiterating the need for me to work on it 30 minutes later. You have seen I am not sitting on my hands, and that even if I might not be able to comply with the deadlines (I did not ever accept to begin with) as they are originally set, my answer times as a whole are not by far as untimely as the treatment we did as a team to the original request of David back on September (to which I am the only person who replied). Instead of a two month timeframe and the ability to understand the real needs and offer the right solution, I worked with a two week timeframe, without really understanding the needs and process, and without a say on how this was to be implemented. I am sure there are better ways of implementing this than by reimplementing the wheel - but yes, my role here is to reimplement wheels.
I can only hope our opinions regarding the implementation of the third stage of this system, the use of specialized, external and already existing data analysis tools areheard (of course I will implement the second stage, as it is the main part of the request after all).
So far, I have refrained myself from posting in English, as I understand (and request) the information flow go through you and you know much better than me David's true needs. But I cannot and will not stand being portrayed as irresponsable in my work.Fixed.Fixed.Fixed.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Plenary 2: Not ready?
by Edgar J. Becerra-Bertram on Wednesday November 28, @10:45AM
|
|
Dear Gunnar:
Thank you for such a timely response. I do have an observation,
- David's document groups the questions which are related. It would make it more readable if we retain the structure, i.e. Part A and Part B. The flow is better.
Best regards,
Edgar abuelo
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Plenary 2: Not ready?
by Edgar J. Becerra-Bertram on Wednesday November 28, @10:55AM
|
|
Gunnar:
Sorry, I missed the following,
- Question 8 (in David's document) is missing a phrase.
Question 8.
How many years of experience have you had in your current type of employment (as indicated in your answer to question 4)?
[ ] years
- Numbering the questions is helpful, otherwise one has no way of referring to question 4.
Best regards,
Edgar abuelo
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Yup, you got me with that question
by Gunnar on Wednesday November 28, @08:19PM
|
|
I didn't think the question numbers added much information or context, except for this question. I was thinking on the best way to represent this, and am not completely happy with what I did - But it works :)
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Plenary 2: Not ready?
by Edgar J. Becerra Bertram on Thursday November 29, @01:47AM
|
|
Dear David and Gunnar:
In David's document and the text on the page coincides with this (as it should), the respondent's email is not required. However, if one does not fill it in, the system rejects the filled form and asks one to fill it in.
What should we do?
Best regards,
Edgar abuelo
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Plenary 2: Not ready?
by Gunnar on Thursday November 29, @09:29AM
|
|
Ok, I removed the validation.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The following
comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
Plenary 2: Not ready?
