Bug #801

Reference entry:review

Added by Michael Lee almost 20 years ago. Updated over 17 years ago.

Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Estimated time:


RP reviews

Related issues

Blocked by VegBank - Bug #800: [876] Citation entry:connect and implement formResolved11/13/2002


#1 Updated by Gabriel Farrell almost 22 years ago

The entry form has be modified and a summary form has been created.

Add Page:

Summary Page:

No detail view has been created so the view detail link on the summary page goes

#2 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

less vital than other methods-type data (cover method, statum), but still
probably necessary by 1.0.0. Plant and Comm References are more important that
this, though.

#3 Updated by Robert Peet over 19 years ago

What is this bug?

Seems likely that it is review of a form being built by ML for entry of
citations. If so it should depend on another bug. I pass this back to ML to
either build the form or enter the bug dependency.

#4 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

current form development from MTL can be viewed at:

#5 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

see for current forms that I've designed.

#6 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

oops, I resolved the review bug and I meant to resolve the design bug

#7 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

Bob, this form is on tekka and awaiting review before Gabe implements. IF
revisions are needed, please pass back to me. Resolve this bug if the form
design is ok and then gabe needs to work on bug 800.

#8 Updated by Robert Peet over 19 years ago

Regards review of Reference Form

This is a form that works and contains all the needed fields. It is, however,
far from intuitive for the new user. We should design these for ease of use
by the intelligent but naïve users. We need directions in critical places and
field names that are intuitive. The form looks like it was built by a
database guy for a database guy. We need to avoid that sort of situation.
Change the fields to be more intuitive, and where necessary provide a line of
explanation under the field. Users will need help figuring out the difference
between shortName, title, & titleSuperior. They will be confused as to the
lack of a field for authors. The will need a pull down for role. They need
to know what to do when there are more than 7 authors. They need to know that
then can add a journal when theirs is not in the list. Again, click here for
VegBank data dictionary is confusing because you should have direct links to
the dictionary for the tables of interest (the users will knot know the table

#9 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

Is the new form that I have made to try to address the very valid concerns that
you raised, Bob. I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. In advance, my own
criticism of my current form is that it is too busy. I suppose that too busy is
better than not enough information. But any ideas on how to stream line this
would help. 2 ideas that I have:
1) kill alternate identifiers from the forms
2) change the form from referencedata next to referenceContrib abd refAltIDent
to make the latter below the reference fields. It won't all fit on one screen,
but will be less busy.

thoughts on those?

#10 Updated by Robert Peet over 19 years ago

1) These comments pertain to

2) This form, like several others, does not line up very well with the
header and footer bars. Do we want to worry about this?

3) For the reference form – View extant: We need a deeply appreviated
index consisting of roughly one line per reference in alphabetical order by
author, probably with a bar at the top to select which letter to start at. I
think authors, date and short title might suffice along with button to see

4) I agree that the reference form is too wide and the stuff to the right
might better be at the bottom. Does not matter if one needs to scroll to get
to the bottom of the form.

Other than these points, and some wordsmithing on the explanations of the
fields, I think this is ready to go. I don’t need to see it again in the near

#11 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago
(_prebuilt.html is before tokens converted).
has rearranged tables to fit Bob's comments. is a sample of
an abbreviated reference_query result, though not quite as sophisticated as Bob
suggests. I think we may want to wait on deployed several different versions of
forms until version 1.1. One form for reporting references should suffice for
version 1.0.

#12 Updated by Michael Lee over 19 years ago

Eventually, we might want to assist users in how to enter a system for alternate
identifiers. I don't know what would be feasible for this. Picklist seems to
restrictive, so perhaps just a link to allow querying of alternate id's. This
would be a 1.1 issue or 2.0 issue, though.

#13 Updated by Michael Lee over 17 years ago

changed from components that are to be deleted to "misc" so that bugs don't get
deleted with component. Sorry for all the email.

#14 Updated by Redmine Admin over 9 years ago

Original Bugzilla ID was 801

Also available in: Atom PDF