printf(“Design with your users.”);

Discuss the feature articles on the Tech Home Page.

Do you agree with these principles?

I have no opinion
15
100%
I have no opinion
0
No votes
I have no opinion
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
bhofmann-p40
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Contact:

Post by bhofmann-p40 »

thedqs wrote:It could also be to get more coverage. I just read the forms and not many of the blogs so I get to read his blog when he posts it here.
True. I read the forums much more than anything else on the site.
User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Post by WelchTC »

bhofmann wrote:Quick question for Tom. Why are you posting your blogs in two places? You seem to get better responses in the forum so I figured you might be testing the various methods. I was just curious.
For more coverage. Some people will read it only on the home page. Others will pick it up in the forums. Originally I only was going to post on the home page but it does not have a good discussion section. So then I thought about only posting in the forums but then only forum attendees read it.

Tom
User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Post by WelchTC »

brado426 wrote:Many times there is added cost and time when trying to meet every user request. In my company, we usually try to negotiate for a realistic, cost-effective solution. Some of our users would have us developing for years and redesigning every single one of our other systems to meet all of their requirements. :) I understand the point you're trying to make, Tom. I just think there are many occasions where the user does need to be told how it is going to work in the spirit of saving time and money.
These are general guidelines...certainly not absolutes. Sometimes it is necessary to explain how complex software works.

Tom
BlackRG
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Utah

Post by BlackRG »

tomw wrote:Interesting idea. I'll pass it along to the MLS guys. If they were to do it, there would need to be work done to disable certain features (such as transmitting information to the Church).

Tom
Though I am not an accountant (I've had a lot of exposure to the task) I'd recommend you have some accountants look it over as well. Much of the financial section feels like it was done from the viewpoint of a programmer instead of an accountant. I know one thing I've found frustrating is the ability of reconciled months to change under certain circumstances. When I reconcile something, I like for it to stay reconciled.
rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

Post by rmrichesjr »

gblack wrote:Though I am not an accountant (I've had a lot of exposure to the task) I'd recommend you have some accountants look it over as well. Much of the financial section feels like it was done from the viewpoint of a programmer instead of an accountant. I know one thing I've found frustrating is the ability of reconciled months to change under certain circumstances. When I reconcile something, I like for it to stay reconciled.
I'll second that. I was stake finance clerk when MLS took over. With MLS, we lost a LOT of capabilities relative to the finance database arrangement we had been using, and we were using a pretty primitive platform (Borland's Reflex version 2). We used FIS for processing deposits but not for anything else.

A big part of the root cause of MLS causing reconciliations to go bad with time is the use of a simple boolean for whether a check has cleared. For stability in reconciliations, you don't want to know just _whether_ a check has cleared, you want to know _when_ it cleared, at least on which statement. Check clearing should be a YYYY.MM field, not just a boolean. Then, you reconcile based on what had cleared _then_, and the reconciliation stays stable.
Locked

Return to “Featured Article Discussions”