Re: Client Returning to 1.2.21

[Dave <..hidden..>]

Chris, Erik, thank you very much for your responses, comments are inline

On 02/11/2014 07:15 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Erik Huelsmann <..hidden.. <mailto:..hidden..>> wrote:
>     Hi Dave,
>     Thanks for the feedback!

My pleasure

>         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.

 From the trial balance go to the AR account, find an incorrect entry, push VOID, edit, click POST.
The user is not returned to the page with the title  "1200 Receivable Payable : Asset" but to a
page with the title "All Assets" which includes entries from every asset account.

I will confirm the above before I file a bug report

 > 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.

I understand, but even after printing the user is not returned to the list and has no easy way to return to the original list.

>         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.

Again the real flaw is the user wants to return to the Expense Account listing, after posting and/or printing

>
>     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.

I will gather the exact steps and then file the reports

>
>         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 ?

No they did not. However, one of the grey hairs said 1.2 had the same problem originally but it got "fixed".
It could well be a custom hack was applied.

> 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?

I can confirm that a vendor with an end date of 2012-05-31 appears in the Payment search with a > date of 2013-05-01

> 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.

Exactly, will do

>
>                          - 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.

Thank you, as you note below it is not critical but they will be happy

>
> 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.

It's funny, when they know what client they want, they like the new search field. :)

- Cash Receipt page is extremely confusing

> 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.

I agree, I think this is more a documentation weakness. There is far more functionality in the new screen and people simply don't know how to use it.

> 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.

Thank you, I will get them to investigate this.

          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?

Go to Trial Balance
Then click on the AP Account (2100)

Between the title and the report on the left hand side is the line "From <date trial balance started to date ended>"
This used to be a link that returned to the trial balance account listing.

In fact I placing a link like this on the forms might solve the issue of not able to returning to the correct lists easily.

> 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:

That's what they have been doing :) As I said minor

>     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.

If you could provide an easy way to return to the desired transaction lists as is done when working out of the
AR/AP reports they will migrate within 1-2 months.

>
>     Thanks again for sharing your experience!

I think you guys deserve the real kudos for supply and supporting the system.

Give me a couple of days for the bug reports please.

Dave

-- 
Dave Morgan
Senior Consultant, 1001111 Alberta Limited
..hidden..
403 399 2442

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
..hidden..
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users