BOARD 10.3 Horizontal Year/Numeric selector behaviour changes
Has anyone got any ideas as to how a selector, with numeric members, can be optimally configured to behave in the same way as that of BOARD 10.1.x?
ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION
I have a model that uses a horizontally configured selector for YEAR. Regular behaviour up to BOARD 10.1.4 is that the user can select a year from the years presented. importantly, a tick will indicate the year or years selected but the order of the years never changes. Below is a snapshot of the model which shows that the years 2011, 2016 and 2019 have been selected.
BOARD 10.3 PROBLEM
When upgrading to BOARD 10.3, the same configuration produces very different behaviour. Firstly, selected years are automatically moved to the far left (RANKING). Secondly, there is no means to evenly space the entity members across the width of the page. Instead, all members are bunched up. The background formatting is also changed.
The outcome, which can be seen in the images below, is that my models must be re-worked in order to gain, from the client, an acceptable appearance once more. As the previously desired appearance and functionality is now not possible, all screens must be re-designed and approved once more.
BOARD 10.1.4 WEB: YEAR selector w/horizontal config.The years 2011,2016 & 2019 have been selected
BOARD 10.3.0 WEB: YEAR selector w/horizontal config.The years 2011,2016 & 2019 have been selected
Answers
-
Hi Paul Wyatt - Avison Young UK
In our models we very often use selectors with their "summary" form.
It looks like in 10.3, all these selectors have moved "up" in the screens by a few pixels.
Did you notice the same?
Anybody knows why and / or how we can fix that for all selectors (we have dozens of selectors in hundreds of screens...) ? Björn Reuber I'm looking at you...0 -
Hi,
from 10.1 to 10.3 the selector changed completly. As you can see in vertical selector there is an option (in HTML5) for this
Don't know when this will be included in horizontal selector.
From my point of view (if the behavior has changed in this way) I would suggest to create a TK, so 2nd Level can analyze if this feature/optin can be implemented also in horizontal selector.
BUT from a different perspective (without knowing the analysis which have been done for the selector), now the behavior is the same on different visualizations of the selector, cause the horizontal one hasn't been resorted and summarized and vertical has, so from my side I'm able to discuss this as a fix (to make the behavior of the object for different display methods more similar) and as an issue (cause behavior has changed)
Etienne CAUSSE no I havent noticed that, but I think creating a TK for this would be the best way
Regards
Björn
0 -
Yes. This was one of the many behaviours which appears to have not been fully tested in the release. I did not report on it as I had concluded early on that we could not upgrade.
I will be waiting for v10.5
0 -
Paul Wyatt - GVA wrote:
This was one of the many behaviours which appears to have not been fully tested in the release
completly disagree. There has been done a lot of testing action and a changed behavior (like this is) is not allways an error from testing view (cause it's a new component)
I did not report on it as I had concluded early on that we could not upgrade.
I will be waiting for v10.5
But without reporting this to our support, there is only a small change to get it fixed. How should our Lab change stuff like this, when nobody report it?
Regards
Björn
0 -
Björn Reuber I just opened ticket #41973 for this.
An example in 10.1.4:
and in 10.3.0
The fact that it now shows the full bar is ok but the change in position means we might have to review all capsules, is that normal ?
0 -
Hi,
can you please also show a screenshot of Win Client?
Regards
Björn
0 -
Hi,
to make answers more precise, right now we have 3 topics in the Thread:
- a) summarized Selector is displayed different (top alligned instead of middle)
b) horizontal selector is now orderd from Active to Inactive
c) horizotal selector is not using whole space
About a) there is already a TK about this in the lab
b) this decison was made from our Business Analysts to have a more common behavior between the 3 different visualizations of the Object (but feel free to create a TK on this)
c) different behavior to always display a Selector in the same width, independent from the width of the object (widht is defined from the longest text)
Regards
Björn
1 - a) summarized Selector is displayed different (top alligned instead of middle)
-
Sure :
0 -
For a) does that mean this require a patch release ? Or to wait for next release ?
0 -
If behaviour is to be 'aligned' for standardisation reasons, the changes should have been implemented as additional options and not replacement ones. Microsoft demonstrated this fantastically well with Windows 8.0 and the 'start' button?
Regarding C). It is very hard to design a screen when the software provider incorporates dynamic sizing such as you've described which cannot be controlled by the developer.
I have screens that exploited the selector's original, and established, ability to fit to the given width area and now must rethink not only the screen design but also how the clients will interact with it. They were happy with the original behaviour and now are not with this enforced change. I too am not happy at having to explain how I have no control over future board decisions to take away established behaviour. Such responses do not fill clients with confidence that they are getting a system of longevity. Such negative feelings can then erode motivation to adopt what is, to them, new.
I think BOARD could be a market leader but, at times, it is is own worst enemy. You cannot tell me that testing was successful because the new release met the esoteric criteria of the provider. Subsequent releases should build on that which had become established, not take away or replace functionality arbitrarily.
0 -
Hi Paul Wyatt - Avison Young UK
I understand your points and arguments. But for me it's very important to use the best channel for each communication. And for the topics you adressed shortly the best/better channel would be our Ticket System. I also will have a dicussion on this with my colleagues from HQ, but first of all, I ask you to create a TK on this (if you want you can tell me the Number so I try to follow it). Maybe there is a change in one of the next versions to have both options.
Regards
Björn
0 -
HI Björn Reuber,
As a pro-active developer, I use all means available to raise issues at the point of discovery. I use both the ticketing system and the community forum to speedily disseminate information. My interest is in seeing BOARD software improve so that I can continue to develop enterprise level models that will last and are of real value to clients.
Below is an extract of my ticket log - correct and current as at the time of posting this response for your information.
Regards,
Paul
0 -
Hi Paul Wyatt - Avison Young UK
it seems I misunderstood some of your post. for me it seems, that there wasn't a TK on this. I try to get in touch with the guys from UK, maybe they can forward your TK to 2nd level or give you an better answer than mine
regards
Björn
0 -
I had a reply on my ticket:
Dear Etienne,
at the moment there is not a way to fix all that at once. We are working towards the full web version, and that option might come with Board 11.
I hope it helps
DavideSo basically I have 2 choices:
- Wait for 11, and lose the benefit of long-awaited options (like flattened export in the web and configure mode bug solving)
- Move all selectors in all my screens to avoid ugly side effects, and then do it back again in 11 ?
Just because of an alignment option ?
0 -
unfortunatly I only can say "it seems so". There is also an third option, to use 10.3 and know that the visualization is not in a proper way.
Sorry that I can't give you a different answer on this.
regards
Björn
0 -
@Etienne, We have adopted the position of staying with 10.1.4, which we feel is the most stable and predictable release to date, after 9.0.3, for our proposition.
With many external clients and service level agreements, we don't have an option due to the resources required with approaching, discussing, planning and educating the user base.
However, I can say that release issues such as these are having an impact on how BOARD is regarded within the business. This makes trying to scale up and get the wider business to adopt it much harder.
I just want to say also, I think our colleague Björn Reuber might have been suggesting that the community was not the place to view personal opinions ( Björn Reuber, I apologise if I am wrong). Without context from impact and outcomes, we would only have a technical platform which is of no use to the wider business audience and potential new customers of BOARD.
0
