HT/VT Reporting Website Overview

Discussions around miscellaneous technologies and projects for the general membership.
The_Earl
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:12 am

#81

Post by The_Earl »

My vote then is for just 'visited / not visited / not reported' default with the ability to add or modify types as needed.
User avatar
bhofmann
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Contact:

#82

Post by bhofmann »

tomw wrote:I spoke with the priesthood department about the whole "Visit Types" idea. Because of the diverse geographical and cultural issues within the Church, the definition of what a visit is will be left to the local priesthood leaders, which would favor keeping the tool simple.

Tom
When in doubt, keep it simple. You can always expand on it later if you need. No use spending time on complexity upfront.
User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

#83

Post by brado426 »

In that case, I'm guessing there will need to be a "Visit-Type Configuration" option such as this:

http://htreporting.com/htrep/screenshot ... ttypes.txt

This way the Presidency could configure the Visit-Types that count as "Not Visited" to either show up as a separate item in the statistics report and pie chart or to be figured in with the rest of the "Not Visited/Contacted."

Hopefully there is a better way to word 1, 2, and 3 to make them easier to understand. I think it would be important to have pre-selectable Visit-type sets so that most Presidencies wouldn't need to deal with this.

This would be a relatively complex change.

Brad O.
The_Earl
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:12 am

Simplified UI

#84

Post by The_Earl »

I don't think you need the radio buttons.

I would use something like:

Code: Select all

         
[font=Courier New]              Counts as visit      Chart Separate 
Visited             X                
Not Visited
Phone               X                  X
Email                                  X
[/font]
Then you only have 2 flags to check.
The_Earl
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:12 am

code / architecture?

#85

Post by The_Earl »

Do you have your code available? Do you have an architecture description / diagram?

Are you looking for coding help?

Thanks
TE
User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

#86

Post by brado426 »

The Earl wrote:I don't think you need the radio buttons.

I would use something like:

Code: Select all

         
[font=Courier New]            Counts as visit      Chart Separate [/font]
[font=Courier New]Visited             X                [/font]
[font=Courier New]Not Visited[/font]
[font=Courier New]Phone               X                  X[/font]
[font=Courier New]Email                                  X[/font]
Then you only have 2 flags to check.

Yeah, I like that! Neither item being checked means "Not Visited." I'm feeling pretty good about this idea.

Expect a PM from me later regarding the coding help.

Brad O.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31969
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#87

Post by russellhltn »

The Earl wrote:Maybe you could instead add an 'other' visit, that would not be counted by default, but would allow a more descriptive title.
"Other visit" may useful as I believe some of those visits does count as a visit but at the same time it may not be reflective of the assigned HT/VT efforts.

However I'd give some thoughts to using notes. Make the selections as only as detailed as we want for statistical purposes and use notes for the rest. For example, do we want to track "attempted" for statistical purposes, or just let people enter notes to explain why the visit didn't happen? The advantage of this approach is it keeps the summery display clean while still allowing some drill down. It also side-steps the "does it count" confusion.
User avatar
Mr. M-p40
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Anderson, CA
Contact:

#88

Post by Mr. M-p40 »

brado426 wrote:Yeah, I like that! Neither item being checked means "Not Visited." I'm feeling pretty good about this idea.

Expect a PM from me later regarding the coding help.

Brad O.

I would love to help to Brad.

I also have a document to send you with my recommendations for the site. Do you want me to post them here or send them to you privately?

M
Mr. M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit me virtually anytime. ;)

http://www.mariohipol.com
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31969
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#89

Post by russellhltn »

Another thought: "Out of town for the month". Last I looked membership records weren't to be moved unless the person would be gone for more then 3 months. That leaves a lot of "home for the holidays" or "home for summer". Especially for singles and student wards.

(Yeah, I know. I keep pushing for simplification and yet I keep thinking up more things.) :rolleyes:

But I guess my prior question still holds: A drop-down category or put it in "notes"?
User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

#90

Post by brado426 »

Here's a technical concern that I'm not sure how to solve....

Whenever a teacher reports, the system plugs the Visit-type ID into the "Results" database table. The VisitType ID in the VisitType table is joined with the VisitType ID in the Results table. If we allow the Visit Types to be modified/Deleted/Added in the "Visit-Types" table, what is going to happen to all the Visit Type relationships that were previously reported? If significant changes were made to the Visit-Types table, the reported visits would link to the wrong Visit-Type or possibly even link to nothing.

The system currently stores up to one year of historical data so that the "History" report can be generated.

It is almost as if we would need to allow the user to configure the Visit Types the first time they used the system but never allow it again. Either that or we would need to do an UPDATE of all the IDs that were previously submitted whenever a change was made to the VisitTypes table.

The more I think about this, the more complex it gets. :o

I'm not sure that there are any easy answers here. Please enlighten me.

Brad O.
Post Reply

Return to “Other Member Technologies”