Sanity checks
under review
Paul King
Add "sanity checks" on the mobile app to remind me to capture vital information on-site or warn me when duplicate data has been entered.
The cost for missed or forgotten data is high, especially if another site visit is needed to collect the missing data.
Example sanity checks:
- Missing cover page photo.
- {n} inspection items are missing photos.
- {n} inspection items have the same sample ID
- Missing site sketch photo.
David King
under review
We think a good approach is to include a "soft warning" rather than
prevent
the user from continuing.There's a few reasons we'd like to start with this approach:
- There are often legitimate reasons that a field cannot be filled-in.
- When software has too many "nags", they ultimately get ignored.
We think a "soft warning" is a decent middle ground; the user can see that a field is needed, but isn't prevented from continuing without it.
Ian Gregory
I know your recent updates make this easier but duplicate fire damper numbers can be annoying, especially when copying and pasting.
Paul King
Ian Gregory: Would a soft warning work here then Ian?
e.g.
Warning:
"Two records with the same reference: FD01"
And then highlight the relevant items?
Ian Gregory
Paul King: yep perfect!
C
Chris Carvey
I agree, to much can be a hassle, however there are some fairly fundamental entries that the majority of the time should have something in them ie front photo, photos for samples sample, number on a sample entry. Perhaps a two phase approach soft reminders for some and a bit more of a kick for others could even be a user company preference to chose which ones?
David King
Chris Carvey: Great feedback!
I reckon we'll split the feature into two; that way we get to make two small updates instead of a larger one. The first will be the "soft warning", then we can get feedback on that before making anything more solid.
David King
under review
We think a good approach is to include a "soft warning" rather than
prevent
the user from continuing.There's a few reasons we'd like to start with this approach:
- There are often legitimate reasons that a field cannot be filled-in.
- When software has too many "nags", they ultimately get ignored.
We think a "soft warning" is a decent middle ground; the user can see that a field is needed, but isn't prevented from continuing without it.