improve reporting mechanism in entry tool
For deliverable 4.1
Also talk about error checking and general process that happens when CVS data arrives. This will be handy for internal use @ CVS too.
#2 Updated by Michael Lee almost 13 years ago
We need to incorporate Steve's suggestions, which are (excerpts from Jan 10, 2008 email):
... tables pertaining to vigor and damage were probably
difficult for uninformed readers to interpret because the damage and
vigor codes were not listed near the table.
The following is a synopsis of your suggestions for improvement with
1. Potential errors could be included/highlighted in the reports so
that users can eliminate or explain them: Although I can see how this
might be helpful, I'm not sure it is worthwhile. Perhaps for certain
types of errors/data issues. Please advise.
2. Mortality rates could be added: I agree that adding overall and
annual mortality rates would be nice.
3. Being able to query plots according to soil type etc. might help
guide other restoration efforts in similar areas: I agree. Soil
conditions and the lack of topsoil definitely affect veg and project
success substantially. Such information could lead us toward soil
restoration projects followed by a conventional restoration project.
4. Reporting could be improved with imagery. I completely agree.
Being able to interpret the data visually while also providing an
adequate amount of detail would be ideal....lots of possibilities here.
5. Reports that focus on firms, or people, might be useful for the
proposed certification process. I agree...lots of possibilities.
At this point, the ideas for improvement that rank the highest for me
are 2 and 4, along with adding additional information such as vigor and
damage codes to existing tables.