The use of "Status" throughout different master lists on the rebuild admin site is causing some confusion. It would help to streamline the use of "Status," so it indicates only one option (active/inactive) throughout all master lists.
Further to Paul's feedback above, there appears to some inconsistency in the way we're using the term "status" across the admin site. In some contexts we're using the term to describe its state in the analysis process (or whether it's published) and in other contexts we're using it to describe whether a document is active/inactive.
Understandably this is causing some confusion for the content team. How do you suggest we resolve this? Should we change the label of "Status" in Treaties, Arbitration Rules and Dispute Documents to "Doc. State" or something else?
Also, as
Paul
has pointed out, there are quite a few documents where the document state is blank. Is there a way for a document to not have a document state?
Thanks,
Morgan
Notified 7 people
Melissa Cowell,General Manager
Morgan
I suggest the simplest solution is for master list records that do not follow the document publishing flow (ie: disputes, people, organizations, etc.) we do not use the term status, but rather update that column heading to active/inactive to be consistent across all master list types.
After a spot check on rebuild of documents with no document state, these appear to be placeholder documents - and therefor no publishing state would apply.
Let me know your thoughts.
Mel
Notified 8 people
Morgan Maguire,CEO
Ok. That works for me
Melissa
.
Also, we may want to think about addressing what we're listing in the master list record itself. Currently, we're indicating the record's "status" as active/inactive:
Perhaps it would be clearer if we used a different term here and also listed the document state when applicable.
Let's plan to get some user stories written on this to resolve the issue post-launch. In the meantime,
Paul
,
Nafiseh
,
Irit
and
Katrina
, please take note of the discussion above and understand the distinction between active/inactive and the document state.
Martin L.
Further to Paul's feedback above, there appears to some inconsistency in the way we're using the term "status" across the admin site. In some contexts we're using the term to describe its state in the analysis process (or whether it's published) and in other contexts we're using it to describe whether a document is active/inactive.
Understandably this is causing some confusion for the content team. How do you suggest we resolve this? Should we change the label of "Status" in Treaties, Arbitration Rules and Dispute Documents to "Doc. State" or something else?
Also, as
Thanks,
Morgan
I suggest the simplest solution is for master list records that do not follow the document publishing flow (ie: disputes, people, organizations, etc.) we do not use the term status, but rather update that column heading to active/inactive to be consistent across all master list types.
After a spot check on rebuild of documents with no document state, these appear to be placeholder documents - and therefor no publishing state would apply.
Let me know your thoughts.
Mel
Also, we may want to think about addressing what we're listing in the master list record itself. Currently, we're indicating the record's "status" as active/inactive:
Perhaps it would be clearer if we used a different term here and also listed the document state when applicable.
Let's plan to get some user stories written on this to resolve the issue post-launch. In the meantime,
Thanks,
Morgan
https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/21171-improvement-status-vs-activeinactive
Mel