-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Summary of user requests
Michael Villeneuve edited this page May 28, 2021
·
23 revisions
Author: Michael
Date: 2020-05-17
Here I'll describe things to improve on the portal. This includes content updates, bugfixes, and feature requests. These points have been aggregated from the Github issue tracker, mails from Desiree and Iris, and personal discoveries and ideas.
These should be quick to fix, and usually don't need testing.
- Study Assessment: Who are the comments for? Make this clearer. Comments are for the FETC and other reviewers.
- Request for submitters to use a intentionally vague language in the title to not give away information that might influence participants (needs opinions)
- Add title and/or refnum to email asking supervisors for review.
These are programming errors or unwanted effects of the website logic, and need to be fixed. Fixing these can have side effects in other parts of the code so these need to be tested.
- Mails not being sent: Draft application has been submitted. Supervisors don't receive an email when they have a new decision to make. (fixed)
- Multiple supervisors: "er gaan dingen niet goed", "opeens aanvraag ingediend" (needs clarification/research)
- In the application process, invalid fields are not saved, for example if a user leaves blank a field previously filled in. (needs refactor)
- Error messages during the application process sometimes appear on the first visit, when the user has not (yet) done anything wrong. After saving, they occasionally appear twice. (needs refactor)
- The current foldout detail display is very annoying and doesn't facilitate copying text well. (fixed)
- Sometimes multiples of the same email are sent (needs research) (can't reproduce)
- Practice proposals don't validate or show errors: #154 (fixed)
This is a wishlist of features which would improve the effectiveness of the portal and the user experience within it. Of the three categories these are the least pressing but are important nonetheless. These improvements also require more testing.
- More (preferably all) correspondence should be facilitated through the portal, so that it is recorded and information is not lost in intermediate emails. For example by implementing forum-style comments visible to both parties. (needs refactor)
- Searching proposals based on type of research / Full text search (somewhat implemented in #195)
- Project number for financing should be recorded, as well as the actual financier (rather than just the category such as direct government funding) (needs opinions)
- Automatically send PDF to submitter via E-mail on submission
- Reminders for reviewers
- Redesign of preassessment process (needs discussion / clear requirements)
- Redesign of preapproved proposal process (needs discussion / clear requirements)
- User-facing method for assigning another (temporary) secretary
- A user-facing statistics page
- Review details page should show more info:
- If a route has been assigned
- Which route has been assigned
- Mark documents which are unchanged since a previous revision to aid in the review process
- Recode the downloading of PDF's in a way that is consistent between reviewers and submitters, and provides filename hints (done)
- A way to hide inactive/abandoned proposals from lists (see #198)
- New categories:
- Proposals sent back for revision which have not yet been resubmitted
- Proposals waiting for decision or review per route (long/short)
- All revisions waiting for decision or review
- These might be best implemented through some kind of advanced search.
Feedback through email to be addressed:
Nu ik naar de acceptatieversie kijk zie ik nog wat andere dingen:
- Op de ‘register a new study’ pagina staat: “For example: school management,", maar voor TVs en IBs voor de schoolleiding hoef je geen apart traject aan te maken; mogelijkheid om deze documenten in te dienen komen volgens mij automatisch als is aangegeven dat het onderzoek op een school plaatsvindt, toch? Ik denk dat het voorbeeld dus niet klopt. Misschien moeten we hiervan maken:
“For example: children of up to 12 years in schools and teachers who both participate in your research.”
- “All tasks or procedures that a participant completes in a day combined." moet dat niet zijn: “All tasks or procedures that a participant completes combined in a day.”?
- Recruitment, How will the participants be recruited? Er staat 2x ‘This field is required’.
- Bij ‘One or more trajectories’ staan session en task kort omschreven, terwijl bij ‘Task-based research and interviews’ nog een heel verhaal staat. Maar misschien maar laten staan, want legt wel e.e.a. wat meer uit.
- Bij ‘Overview and self-assessment of the entire study’ staat nog iets in het Nederlands: ‘Sessie 1 (totale brutoduur: 15 minuten)’.
- Bij ‘Informed consent forms’ staat: “If needed, you can also upload up to 2 sets of additional forms. These extra fields can be removed by clearing all forms in one section.” Maar ik kan drie sets of additional forms toevoegen? En ik snap niet direct wat je bedoelt met 'clearing all forms in one section’. Wat is een section?