SPRING Web Review further notes and discussion

[andrewvanbreda]

A series of notes on the SPRING Web Review document that I believe either:

1. Need further discussion before raising as their own issue. or
2. Where further action is not recommended by myself, but confirmation is needed.

[andrewvanbreda]

(Point 1) Note that the following volunteer observation is the opposite of a previous change I was asked to make, actually it used to work like this, I will not make any alteration unless I hear otherwise.

'When editing the results, once submitted it brings you back to enter pantrap results, probably best if it stayed on the same “My fixed square results” page.'

[andrewvanbreda]

(Point 2) I believe the following suggestion about the pan-trap flower grid is not achievable (unless you have any ideas).

"For each flower from the list, the type of flower has also to be chosen. Can this be automatically done?"

[andrewvanbreda]

(Point 3) Note the following observation (I think there is noting to do here apart from advise volunteer of the availability of padlocks?):

"To enter the data for each pan trap all the previous information has to be filled in. Normally this does not change as is done on the same square, person, day, etc (see example below). Can this be simplified or pre-filled?"

[andrewvanbreda]

(Point 4) Suggestion from volunteer to be considered. "As an idea: would be possible to look to your set-up site with a map and all the pantraps? And they by clicking on each of them you can enter the new data? "

I guess here we are talking about a map with the pan-traps marked. I guess the problem would be which pan-traps do we show a volunteer? (as they don't get allocated to people) Perhaps ones they have already created samples for? In that case though they will be expecting some of the data to auto-fill, this perhaps means saving these as location attributes....although this probably it isn't that straightforward as that, as what is filled in might depend on the user. Let me know if this situation should be investigated further.

Also another suggestion by a volunteer that might be related (although in this case i am less sure I understand what is required). Am writing this comment here as it also seems to relate to how pan-trap data is entered. "I would prefer introducing all the pan traps at once with a data table format the one-by-one structure ".

[andrewvanbreda]

(point 5) One volunteer made this observation, but I am not sure there is anything to be done with the website. Are these alterations to be fixed in the manual? Am not sure I understand the last bit about having to select a transect name.

"The manual is clear and simple, which eases the process altogether. Though it guides you through the logging in process, it goes straight to the pan trap data submission which I found confusing provided there were no indications on how to do the transect setup or the fact that you need to do so before being able to introduce any data from either of the two transect walks. When setting up the transect, I felt that being asked for a transect name after having already selected the location could be a bit confusing."

[andrewvanbreda]

Hi @DavidRoy

All items from the Web Review document have now been raised in other issues, or already dealt with. However I am unsure if the 5 points above need to be put into proper issues? Please advise whenever you are ready.

In summary my thoughts are

Point 1 = System used to work like they are suggesting to change it to, but you asked the pan-trap data entry form to return to itself after save. Point 2 = Unless you have ideas, don't think achievable. Point 3 = Not sure anything to do, apart from volunteer needs clarity on use? Point 4 = Suggestion from volunteer to be considered by you. If you want it, let me know and I will raise it properly. Point 5 = I think these might be fixes needed in the manual.