PTT labels are re-used and this is a known and expected thing in the ATN data provider community. In the ATN Portal Project Overview tab, the re-used PTT labels are marked with an extra suffix, e.g. Franciscana dolphin (111838)[1], Franciscana dolphin (111838)[2]. The request is to remove the extra suffix to show that these two deployments are re-using same PTT label [1][2]. However, the color differentiation of unique deployments needs to be preserved even if using the same PTT label.
What is the requested deadline and why?
No response
What is the current status quo (i.e., what happens if this does not get done)?
Inconsistent labeling between the PTT labels on the ATN Portal Project Overview tab and the ATN Portal Deployments tab
What indicates this is done (i.e., how do we know this is complete)?
No response
Provide a description or any other important information.
NOTE: I need to touch base with our developers to fill out more details
Who is requesting this?
ATN DAC steering group, funders, etc
What is being requested?
PTT labels are re-used and this is a known and expected thing in the ATN data provider community. In the ATN Portal Project Overview tab, the re-used PTT labels are marked with an extra suffix, e.g.
Franciscana dolphin (111838)[1],Franciscana dolphin (111838)[2]. The request is to remove the extra suffix to show that these two deployments are re-using same PTT label[1][2]. However, the color differentiation of unique deployments needs to be preserved even if using the same PTT label.What is the requested deadline and why?
No response
What is the current status quo (i.e., what happens if this does not get done)?
Inconsistent labeling between the PTT labels on the ATN Portal Project Overview tab and the ATN Portal Deployments tab
What indicates this is done (i.e., how do we know this is complete)?
No response
Provide a description or any other important information.
NOTE: I need to touch base with our developers to fill out more details