Aebrown and lajackson, the system does have a bug as I have tried to outline. On the stake computer neither of the "Remove" buttons does anything and they certainly don't change the Stake Geo code back to the "add button". However, the next time I go back to the stake computer I will change all those extraneous ward geo codes to one code as you have suggested and hopefully that will get rid of all the extra extraneous codes now residing in the drop down list.
Just as an example - here are some of the codes that were used by the "other" ward: Poland, LZ08, A1 - A-6, Edison, Talo7 along with some other weird number and letter combinations that I am sure even the ward doesn't remember what they stand for. I will change each of those codes on the Stake Geo Code list to simply "Unc1" and see what happens.
If nothing else this has sure been an interesting experience. I'm looking forward to sitting down with the Stake President and using the codes we did come up with to look at realignment
GEO Codes and Boundary Realignment
-
coletheelder
- New Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:50 am
- Location: Ewa Beach, HI
-
lajackson
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11479
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
coletheelder wrote:Why are the Ward Geo Codes/Household Geo Codes and the Stake Geo Code not mutually exclusive?
I do not know. I suppose it could be because the developers decided it might be of help to the stake if a ward could update the stake geocode. It would appear from this thread (and the other long one) that this is not always the case.
I can see where a stake may ask wards to put a certain code in ward MLS that would flow to the stake. We have never asked wards to do that.
-
lajackson
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11479
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
FFRsqpilot wrote:Aebrown and lajackson, the system does have a bug as I have tried to outline. On the stake computer neither of the "Remove" buttons does anything and they certainly don't change the Stake Geo code back to the "add button".
Ok. You are correct. The Remove link does nothing. This is a bug and needs to be reported. I just checked on a stake MLS installation. The Remove link does not remove anything under either option.
That said, I have not played around with geocodes in some time. I am too busy trying to get the basic backup and restore to work, which has not functioned for us since MLS 3.3.0 and has a much higher priority at this point.
-
RossEvans
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Austin TX
- Contact:
lajackson wrote:I do not know. I suppose it could be because the developers decided it might be of help to the stake if a ward could update the stake geocode. It would appear from this thread (and the other long one) that this is not always the case.
I can see where a stake may ask wards to put a certain code in ward MLS that would flow to the stake. We have never asked wards to do that.
The ward clerks could still update the Stake Geo Code by entering their data directly into that field within ward MLS. They can still do that today.
What is baffling is why the designers thought it a good idea to copy -- without user confirmation by either the ward or stake clerks -- the Ward Geo Code to the Stake Geo Code field on the ward MLS system, and then to the stake Stake Geo Code fielld on stake MLS. That seems to be the source of most mischief and misunderstanding here. This undocumented behavior is the very definition of non-intuitive user interface design, a case study in how not to build software. Rather than all this voodoo hidden behind the scenes, clerks at both levels would be better served by the KISS principle and a couple of new buttons to let the clerks control things expressly. Otherwise, keep the two fields' content separate.
-
aebrown
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 15153
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
- Location: Draper, Utah
RossEvans wrote:What is baffling is why the designers thought it a good idea to copy -- without user confirmation by either the ward or stake clerks -- the Ward Geo Code to the Stake Geo Code field on the ward MLS system, and then to the stake Stake Geo Code fielld on stake MLS. That seems to be the source of most mischief and misunderstanding here. This undocumented behavior is the very definition of non-intuitive user interface design, a case study in how not to build software. Rather than all this voodoo hidden behind the scenes, clerks at both levels would be better served by the KISS principle and a couple of new buttons to let the clerks control things expressly. Otherwise, keep the two fields' content separate.
I find it difficult to agree with that rant. The design actually makes a lot of sense to me; it's hardly "a case study in how not to build software." The wards know their neighborhoods better than the stake, so if the ward has set up ward geo codes, and the stake has not added its own codes, why not use the ward code as a starting point for the stake? Then the stake is free to do what they want with the codes, overriding them. Once the stake has entered their codes, the ward codes should no longer be a factor.
Now there are clearly some problems with the implementation; I would certainly agree with that. But the design does not warrant that extremely harsh criticism.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
-
russellhltn
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34507
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
aebrown wrote:Now there are clearly some problems with the implementation; I would certainly agree with that. But the design does not warrant that extremely harsh criticism.
The complaint I have is that given the layout, the function is unintuitive to say the least.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
aebrown
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 15153
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
- Location: Draper, Utah
Putting aside the implementation problems, I don't see what the big deal is. There's a stake geo code column, that is obviously the only one that can be changed in stake MLS. There's a ward geo code column, that is obviously just for reference. When there is no code for a household, there's an Add link; if there is a code, it's displayed as a link, which clearly indicates that clicking on the link is the way to change it. There's also a Remove link for removing the code. What's so hard about that?RussellHltn wrote:The complaint I have is that given the layout, the function is unintuitive to say the least.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.
-
russellhltn
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34507
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
aebrown wrote:What's so hard about that?
That's not the problem. It's about where the code goes and what your expectations for that are.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
RossEvans
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Austin TX
- Contact:
Rereading my comments, I don't think they were a "rant" at all. I think they were a straightforward and negative review of a bad software design, a criticism with which you disagree.aebrown wrote:I find it difficult to agree with that rant.... But the design does not warrant that extremely harsh criticism.
As empirical evidence of the usability to other real-world clerk-users who are not invested in MLS, I offer the example of the frustrated users coming here for help in these threads. I've designed software for a living myself for many years, and used a lot of it. And as a user-clerk with experience in both MLS and MIS, I know in my gut I would never expect data I enter into a field labeled Ward Geo Code to magically populate a different field labeled Stake Geo Code without even a warning or prompt. Intuitively, these are just two different fields. I would expect that something I enter into a field labeled Stake Geo Code in ward MLS might propagate to the same field in stake MLS, which is the only way we have ever used these fields in our unit. But except for lajackson's intrepid reverse-engineering that is published deep in these forums, I would never know this other behavior was happening. I doubt that most clerks, who do not delve deep into these erudite archives, understand it either.
That is not good design. I appreciate your own role as devil's advocate, but I am unconvinced.