Chris McFarland
My feedback
115 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
37 votes
Your idea has been added to our backlog. We are now further investigating the idea.
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
I see what you're describing in Forms, but not for a store dialog. I have a lot of processes where there will be one single row of data matching on the first field that we'll populate. What I'm seeing is that in a store dialog there is no automatic population at all. The ticket refers to store dialog specifically, and for me that's where I'd most like to see it. If you're seeing any kind of automatic population in a store dialog then I'm interested. Maybe there is a way.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
This is big one. A form is so much nicer looking than a task and all of the workarounds are pretty clunky. People see to expect it and are disappointed when they see that we have to go to tasks instead, or using Export to get the form as a PDF (in that case you lose control of the form, too, and editing is wide open).
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
I'm often trying to puzzle how ways around not being able to have following people go into the web form and interact with it just like the first user did. Really need this one.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Oh yeah, this is a good one. So clunky when I have to have a user punch in some data and then confirm the task, only to wait to have the same task come back to them with the calculations made. It's common to need to do that, too. Both in table fields and also just in general, any kind of live calculations, field behavior rules (show this if that is filled in but hide it if it isn't) or case specific validations (show this error if this condtion exists but then show another message if this other condition exists) would be greatly appreciated.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
70 votes
Your idea has been added to our backlog. We are now further investigating the idea.
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
For me it isn't that you cannot at all delete pages, but rather about the convenience of the operation. If the document is in a tray waiting to be stored then likely there will be other things also in the tray. If you split the document in this case the pages are all in there with the other documents and the situation gets to be a mess. You can create an additional tray to move thigns to for splitting but then you're adding steps and complication. If the document is already stored then you can copy to a tray and deal with all of that and then also have to go in and delete the original. You can use the Edit function and for PDF's more than a viewer is required to edit pages and you have complications for that function. I think the spirit of this request is a convenient and natural feeling way to edit pages in documents. More direct and integrated into the viewer. That is the way that I interpret it, for what that is worth.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
Thank you for your idea. Right now we are focusing on other topics, so we are not considering this idea for future releases. If the demand for this topic increases, we might add it to future plans.
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Just got asked for this today and it's a great idea. Could even order by the priority. Would be a nice add.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Important functionality in many cases and clients can get really touchy when it comes to their branding.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Yes, html emails would be a big improvement. The plaintext emails do have a very basic look about them and people expect something prettier these days.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Really missing this feature. With data lookups only being by drop down, where you can't preload data, the data lookup feature can fall flat in a lot of cases.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesChris McFarland
shared this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Ordering would be awesome. Such a hassle dealing with the unchangeable alpha/numeric ordering.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
24 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Yes. Needed if you're going to get serious with putting DW Forms to work.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesChris McFarland
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
The present method is a mess. The users are never in an OU without unwanted users. Sometimes hundreds and even thousands of unwanted users. Renders the current sync operations pretty near useless. If it works but creates a huge mess to deal with (all of the unwanted user accounts) then it's not really working. We need to be able to point to a group and pull in the members of the group.
-
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Search and store dialogs can get really crazy and right now they're really just sort of clumped all together. Some users need enough of them to make it an issue that becomes end user facing and I'm often asked if there's a way to manage this situation better. Right now there isn't.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesChris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesChris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesChris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
This feature would provide for a much better user experience for cases where multiple table fields are presented. As it is now there is a lot of scrolling and in a workflow task the space is limited and the scrolling to get to the different table fields is a lot more than I'm actually comfortable asking users to do.
Chris McFarland
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesChris McFarland
supported this idea
·
-
23 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris McFarland
commented
Not an easy thing to do, but really appreciated by the clients. I would do it more often if it were easier to do.
Chris McFarland
supported this idea
·
Seems like it's more common to want the history than to not care if it's there. Would be a good move to add it and appreciated by the system owners, for sure.